Comment Re:One thing that would make me wonder... (Score 1) 186
What if someone doesn't want to use the retina scanner, wouldn't that look suspicious in itself?
That's part of the problem. It SHOULDN'T. There are many reasons a person might not to want to use one.
Some possible reasons?
1. The technology is inacurate and unreliable, and shouldn't be trusted. (Lot's of other posts have dealt with the inaccuracies.)
2. Unless this is radically different than older scanners, some people may find the scan uncomfortable. (Older scanners used visible light. If this one doesn't it may not be bothersome.)
3. Many people may find it as objectionable as being fingerprinted, for exactly the same reasons. Having done nothing wrong, they find it objectionable to be treated as if they were a criminal.
4. They would rather deal with a person than a machine.
5. They don't like the idea of living in a police state and view biometrics as a potentially dangerous tool if misused.
6. Perhaps they simply don't feel well.
Anyway, the point is that even if they have no reason than that simply don't want to, that it doesn't tell you even the first thing about their motivation.
And they already know which flights I take and can register that to their hearts content.
One of the freedoms we take for granted here, but that is still not universally shared, is the ability to travel where and when we choose, without restriction, and without having to get permission. It's not anyone's business, including the government's, where we travel, or when, or how. If they chose to begin tracking all of our movements, that would be a very bad thing because it would be 1) moderately expensive, 2) mostly valueless for any legitimate reason, 3) valuable for all sorts of the wrong reasons (a huge database with lots of information such as this would be a goldmine for targeted marketing, for identify theft, and for a variety of profiling techniques -- it's of no benefit to you, only to others).
So why would I want to refuse to use the easier way of a scan?
For any of the above reasons, or for many more. The question you should be asking is why anyone should want to submit to the scan, and even more importantly, if the scan actually accomplishes what it purports to be for.
It doesn't.
If someone who hasn't previously done anything chooses to harm someone, or hijack a plane, a retinal scan won't do a thing to help identify them.
And even if they are someone who's been identified as a potential threat, the scan may not identify them. They are inaccurate. They are unreliable.
In short, they don't provide a significant benefit to outweigh the obvious imposition and the danger they themselves represent.
I can't help it, but it gives me the fealing that only those who are dishonest for one reason or another would fear a system like that.
That very feeling is a huge part of the problem, not simply with with any such system, but in general. It's exactly the same thing as saying "but only people with something to hide would resist being searched by the police". Our personal freedoms are only real if we can exercise them, and exercise them without an attached stigma associated with them.
I hardly think that it would make us pawns or something like that.
Pawns? No. Not in and of itself. But have you ever seen Gattaca? It's about a world where your physical identity is everything, and where you can't do anything at all without constantly proving, moment by moment, who you are, and where people everything is divided up into where you can and cannot be and what you can and cannot do by the people controling it. Simple freedoms we take for granted don't exist anymore.
By conditioning people to accept such impositions, this is just one more step toward that kind of world, with that kind of pervasive control, whether intentionally or not.
Then go worry over the goverment instead.
Everyone should. Haven't you ever heard the saying "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance. "?
It's not (just) referring to protecting your freedom by watching for threats from external sources. It's about watching everywhere, and especially about watching the watchers. If you don't protect your freedoms aggressively, they will be taken, bit by bit, with one poorly written and poorly reasoned bit of legislation after another. The greatest threat of all is complaceny, and what you've said above is exactly the sort of creeping loss of freedoms it was warning about.
Benjamin Franklin was right. "Those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither."
We should constantly challenge our authority figures to justify their decisions, and to make the best ones possible. We should never assume that if their intentions are good (something we shouldn't assume to begin with, simply because there just as human as the rest of us), that they will make good decisions that should simply be accepted without question.
If we give up our freedoms out of fear, then the terrorists win. They destroy our way of life without having to do anything. Unchecked, the fear of them doing something does far more damage than they themselves.
That's part of the problem. It SHOULDN'T. There are many reasons a person might not to want to use one.
Some possible reasons?
1. The technology is inacurate and unreliable, and shouldn't be trusted. (Lot's of other posts have dealt with the inaccuracies.)
2. Unless this is radically different than older scanners, some people may find the scan uncomfortable. (Older scanners used visible light. If this one doesn't it may not be bothersome.)
3. Many people may find it as objectionable as being fingerprinted, for exactly the same reasons. Having done nothing wrong, they find it objectionable to be treated as if they were a criminal.
4. They would rather deal with a person than a machine.
5. They don't like the idea of living in a police state and view biometrics as a potentially dangerous tool if misused.
6. Perhaps they simply don't feel well.
Anyway, the point is that even if they have no reason than that simply don't want to, that it doesn't tell you even the first thing about their motivation.
And they already know which flights I take and can register that to their hearts content.
One of the freedoms we take for granted here, but that is still not universally shared, is the ability to travel where and when we choose, without restriction, and without having to get permission. It's not anyone's business, including the government's, where we travel, or when, or how. If they chose to begin tracking all of our movements, that would be a very bad thing because it would be 1) moderately expensive, 2) mostly valueless for any legitimate reason, 3) valuable for all sorts of the wrong reasons (a huge database with lots of information such as this would be a goldmine for targeted marketing, for identify theft, and for a variety of profiling techniques -- it's of no benefit to you, only to others).
So why would I want to refuse to use the easier way of a scan?
For any of the above reasons, or for many more. The question you should be asking is why anyone should want to submit to the scan, and even more importantly, if the scan actually accomplishes what it purports to be for.
It doesn't.
If someone who hasn't previously done anything chooses to harm someone, or hijack a plane, a retinal scan won't do a thing to help identify them.
And even if they are someone who's been identified as a potential threat, the scan may not identify them. They are inaccurate. They are unreliable.
In short, they don't provide a significant benefit to outweigh the obvious imposition and the danger they themselves represent.
I can't help it, but it gives me the fealing that only those who are dishonest for one reason or another would fear a system like that.
That very feeling is a huge part of the problem, not simply with with any such system, but in general. It's exactly the same thing as saying "but only people with something to hide would resist being searched by the police". Our personal freedoms are only real if we can exercise them, and exercise them without an attached stigma associated with them.
I hardly think that it would make us pawns or something like that.
Pawns? No. Not in and of itself. But have you ever seen Gattaca? It's about a world where your physical identity is everything, and where you can't do anything at all without constantly proving, moment by moment, who you are, and where people everything is divided up into where you can and cannot be and what you can and cannot do by the people controling it. Simple freedoms we take for granted don't exist anymore.
By conditioning people to accept such impositions, this is just one more step toward that kind of world, with that kind of pervasive control, whether intentionally or not.
Then go worry over the goverment instead.
Everyone should. Haven't you ever heard the saying "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance. "?
It's not (just) referring to protecting your freedom by watching for threats from external sources. It's about watching everywhere, and especially about watching the watchers. If you don't protect your freedoms aggressively, they will be taken, bit by bit, with one poorly written and poorly reasoned bit of legislation after another. The greatest threat of all is complaceny, and what you've said above is exactly the sort of creeping loss of freedoms it was warning about.
Benjamin Franklin was right. "Those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither."
We should constantly challenge our authority figures to justify their decisions, and to make the best ones possible. We should never assume that if their intentions are good (something we shouldn't assume to begin with, simply because there just as human as the rest of us), that they will make good decisions that should simply be accepted without question.
If we give up our freedoms out of fear, then the terrorists win. They destroy our way of life without having to do anything. Unchecked, the fear of them doing something does far more damage than they themselves.
