Invasion of privacy at Airports now?

[BradG]

I understand all that mate, but you still didn't answer my questions;

1 - How will this new law help stop terrorism (or any other acts of violence)?
2 - What does a terrorist look like?

I'm not saying 'don't have security', but I am saying; lets have security measures that are effective. I question the effectiveness of this new law.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Brad on this one. Security at airports is at best, a joke, at worst, a pantomime to make the travelling public feel safe, especially when you consider there are ex-cons working on the flight line where the checks are less stringent.

[Adam the Akrodude]

I understand all that mate, but you still didn't answer my questions;

1 - How will this new law help stop terrorism (or any other acts of violence)?
2 - What does a terrorist look like?

I'm not saying 'don't have security', but I am saying; lets have security measures that are effective. I question the effectiveness of this new law.

Brad, on this issue, I defer to the experts. Answer to question 1 - quite possibly. Can you say this change won't help absolutely? Answer to question 2 - don't be ridiculous.

If you have any better ideas for security measures, perhaps contact the media and/or contact your local MP. Airport security is way different to that we expect from our our law enforcement services outside of airports. It's a different environment and the consequences of getting this wrong are of course catastrophic. One could even expect medical supervised cavity searches if need require it going through international customs and immigration - ouch! There are a lot of pissed off hombre's out there that mean harm to our way of life. Israeli Intelligence service helped stop a catastrophe only some months ago. I honestly don't give a shit about my "rights" being infringed if it means I and my family have a better chance of making it to and from our destination in one piece. But hey, that's just me and of course you're totally entitled to have a different opinion.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Brad on this one. Security at airports is at best, a joke, at worst, a pantomime to make the travelling public feel safe, especially when you consider there are ex-cons working on the flight line where the checks are less stringent.

In that case then surely more security measures such as those being proposed can only but help.

[BradG]

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Brad on this one. Security at airports is at best, a joke, at worst, a pantomime to make the travelling public feel safe, especially when you consider there are ex-cons working on the flight line where the checks are less stringent.

In that case then surely more security measures such as those being proposed can only but help.

Once again, how? You can't answer with an appeal to authority or by posing another question, those are not answers. If someone supports a particular law, you should be able to give a basic explanation of how it will be of benefit. If you can't, you should question why you think it is such a good idea. This really applies to anything, not just the topic at hand.

I'm serious when I ask, what does a terrorist look like? If this law is to be of use, then logically, there must be some visible indication that a person is a terrorist or at very least a bad guy, yes? If not, then is this law simply useless?

To say that you don't care about your rights being infringed is frankly, pretty scary to hear. How many civil liberties are you willing to sacrifice in the name of safety? That's exactly how totalitarian states start as well. As for what I think, I've already made the suggestion; we should follow the example of Ben Gurion Airport. Security is excellent and it keeps in mind the individuals rights, that's the way to go.

In times of fear, people always cry out for protection and government always respond by taking away the rights of honest citizens. No better example right here.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Brad on this one. Security at airports is at best, a joke, at worst, a pantomime to make the travelling public feel safe, especially when you consider there are ex-cons working on the flight line where the checks are less stringent.

In that case then surely more security measures such as those being proposed can only but help.

Once again, how? You can't answer with an appeal to authority or by posing another question, those are not answers. If someone supports a particular law, you should be able to give a basic explanation of how it will be of benefit. If you can't, you should question why you think it is such a good idea. This really applies to anything, not just the topic at hand.

I'm serious when I ask, what does a terrorist look like? If this law is to be of use, then logically, there must be some visible indication that a person is a terrorist or at very least a bad guy, yes? If not, then is this law simply useless?

To say that you don't care about your rights being infringed is frankly, pretty scary to hear. How many civil liberties are you willing to sacrifice in the name of safety? That's exactly how totalitarian states start as well. As for what I think, I've already made the suggestion; we should follow the example of Ben Gurion Airport. Security is excellent and it keeps in mind the individuals rights, that's the way to go.

In times of fear, people always cry out for protection and government always respond by taking away the rights of honest citizens. No better example right here.

Brad, do you think the new laws are just about giving airport security personnel the right to ask for ID? You may want to look at what other measures are being taken. I've answered well enough why more security is a good idea. As threat levels increase, so should counter-measures - it's a sign of the time Brad. You are seriously going WAY over the top with this. How much travelling do you do? I and my family do our fair share for work and catching up with family overseas.

You are looking at this in ridiculously simplistic terms by harping on about what a "terrorist" looks like. Security, Customs & Immigration personnel are trained to look for certain behaviour, it's not about how people look. This is not as I've repeatedly said just about terrorism. TOR could probably fill volumes with stories about all the nutters he and his co-workers have no doubt had to deal with over the years! We now have cameras everywhere, dogs used to sniff for explosives and fruit for that matter, metal detectors used and soon there will be full body x-ray machines apparently for domestic flights (they exist for International already). When I travel, I have to repeatedly show ID at multiple times and points to get anywhere as do anyone who travels does. I have to have my luggage X-rayed and potentially searched, random explosive testing, dogs sniffing my luggage and full body x-ray for international travel as mentioned. Travel to USA involves fingerprinting - would you be happy or not with that?

If you want to travel, then you must expect certain "liberties" to be infringed upon. If you're not happy with this, then don't travel - simple. Happy travelling!

[BradG]

Yes, that's exactly what this new law is. It gives police power at airports to ask for ID to be presented from anyone, at anytime without the requirement of suspicion and you don't even need to be travelling or arriving, you could just be there to pick someone up. You still can't answer the very basic question; how does this new law help prevent terrorism?

If you can't answer that very simple question in 20 words or less, then you should ask yourself why you support it.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Much as I hate to say it, I agree with Brad on this one. Security at airports is at best, a joke, at worst, a pantomime to make the travelling public feel safe, especially when you consider there are ex-cons working on the flight line where the checks are less stringent.

In that case then surely more security measures such as those being proposed can only but help.

You say more security, I say better security. There's a huge difference....these additional measures seem to me to be a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist. Adding additional layers doesn't necessarily do anything except annoy everybody at the airport.

[Graeme H]

Brad, I have stayed out of this so far, and it is one of those things that I find curious that you want to be the person who defends privacy for some very strange reasons, why?
Do you feel big brother is watching you?, well mostly likely yes, but you just don't know about it yet.
I see you are making a case that this is totally unnecessary, and people should not have to ever prove their identity, and I'm guessing that you are with Apple on not letting the FBI into their phones of known Terrorists.

I think this legislation has been driven by these

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... 8172bbd090
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-22/g ... ne/6490714

So in your world how do we counter these guys with the great existing legislation that you think we have? Considering they have already done so.

As a former Checkin Agent, I can tell you the criminality is much more common than Terrorists, should they be allowed the freedom to move about without scrutiny?
The Police may not even yet have these people on their radar, sure they could have impeccable ID's, but not necessarily.
It takes very little to bring down an aircraft, and they don't have to be Terrorists, drugged or drunken passengers pose as much or more of a threat which is why we deny them boarding, or if they get on with no one noticing, aircraft have to divert because of them.

You made a claim that Israel doesn't do this, well have a read of this, and there are plenty more.

http://www.aaronswwadventures.com/2013/ ... en-gurion/

Having been to Japan about a dozen or more times, I can tell you, that all people going to Narita and Haneda Airports have to produce ID just to get onto the airport, then when you get inside, you as the passenger is the only one allowed through security on the Check in desks, then through security to the Duty Free and concourses then checked again at the gate, all fairly normal.
I've been through Dubai, and Abu Dhabi recently, Abu Dhabi requires an ID check when you get off the Plane, then again before you go to the Concourse, then at the gate, Dubai, something similar, but it's a much bigger Airport, did I feel my privacy was been attacked, well not really, just part of air travel these days, now admittedly these Airports are mostly International, but there are a lot of domestic flights as well, different Concourses though, so having never been there, I have no personal knowledge. I have also been through Heathrow and Manchester both domestically and internationally, at both during busy times there are Police at the entrance to the Terminals stopping too many people getting in and crowding the place up, they also check ID's before you can get in, but usually only at very busy times.

None of this guarantees you would pick up on a false ID, but to do nothing as in what you want would guarantee they would continue to do so, it's just going up to the next level, still can be beaten by the determined, but as Ray will tell you, most of the criminal element are not in the higher IQ bracket, and I don't think all the Terrorists are either.

We mostly trail the rest of the world in Security checks, we are only just starting to get body scanners, more than a dozen years behind some of the world. I assume you would argue the toss about getting a body scan if you were flying, trust me when I say don't, the best way to get thrown off a flight is to cause that kind of fuss.

[Ansett A330]

Yes, that's exactly what this new law is. It gives police power at airports to ask for ID to be presented from anyone, at anytime without the requirement of suspicion and you don't even need to be travelling or arriving, you could just be there to pick someone up. You still can't answer the very basic question; how does this new law help prevent terrorism?

If you can't answer that very simple question in 20 words or less, then you should ask yourself why you support it.

To me those accountable for Security need every weapon/tool/asset (pick your word) we can give them to piece together the jigsaw that is Terrorism and if one of those weapons/tools/assets is requesting/asking for ID then I am all for it if it helps them solve that jigsaw to identify a Terrorist as no one knows what a Terrorist looks like but a trained Security person will know armed with that solved jigsaw.

More than 20 words but it answers both of your Questions.