Invasion of privacy at Airports now?

[Ansett A330]

You're not even legally obliged to carry ID in this country, ...

I have no idea what it is like in lawless Victoria but here in GenderlessMonarchysland if you are driving you MUST have your Licence on you. In addition if you are going into a Pub or Club you must also produce Photo ID. Note that in the case of the former the Police also have a description of what they are likely to encounter and/or have encountered with you. Mine is "Polite, cooperative, middle aged Gentleman no need for concern". Again no idea what it's like down there but go for it if you want to be classified as "Argumentative, Lecturing Know-it-all, Gen Whatever have Taser at the ready".

... so if you're a good enough liar you could give a false name.

By all means Brad next time you are talking to the Police give it a try and give a false name and then you and your new best friend "Bubba" can play drop the soap in the Big house.

[tor lives]

honestly didn't know it would be a 4 page discussion. However, it is a discussion forum, Ray wanted more posts and more activity or he was going to shut down. I accept thank yous in form of coffee, kits or cash

Yep.....I have no issue with good, robust discussion, (and you are correct Brad, it is good to see some site activity ), but I have offered my point-of-view on this issue, and I really have nothing further to add.
TOR

[tor lives]

actually I think it's great we can have opposing points of view yet still discuss things without vitriol or personal name calling

I would agree.
TOR

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Ok....to throw a little more petrol on the fire...
There's this:
https://www.3aw.com.au/podcast/there-ar ... on-expert/

this:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -by-pilots

this:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/nationa ... ll-expert/

this:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/nationa ... -airports/

and this:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/workers ... xousf.html

Now, admittedly some of the articles are a year or more old, but what's changed? Improve the security at airports by all means, just don't keep adding more and more layers to a system that doesn't work properly.

[Adam the Akrodude]

actually I think it's great we can have opposing points of view yet still discuss things without vitriol or personal name calling

I would agree.
TOR

I don't agree - poopy pants! - I added a smiley face to make it all good see!

[Cap'n Wannabe]

actually I think it's great we can have opposing points of view yet still discuss things without vitriol or personal name calling

I would agree.
TOR

I don't agree - poopy pants! - I added a smiley face to make it all good see!

Poopy pants? Is that the best you got? Geez mate, you're slipping!

[Adam the Akrodude]

"..had images of those who they suspected of doing harm....", you're building a straw man Adam, because the scenario you suggest would have been covered already under the existing law that states police need reasonable suspicion the person has, or is about to commit a crime. I agree with the reasonable suspicion law, if police see a bloke acting weird around a restricted entrance, or they see a known wanted man, then go for it, but that is not what I am opposed to.

I am opposed to this new law that does away with the reasonable suspicion clause. You're not even legally obliged to carry ID in this country, so if you're a good enough liar you could give a false name.

To add some more straw to the stack, how about this? How about the new law possibly clarifies the whole "reasonable suspicion" issue by bypassing it completely, which obviously could be argued in court (either for or against). This law would then removes any grey areas that could be argued in court. If you think Fed Police will be marching though the check in area demanding people produce their papers at random with any degree of high frequency, I think you are wrong. Common sense will prevail here. Airlines and the airport owners will get very pissed off if they get negative feedback from customers if this is happening. It will get into the news, people will seek legal advice if they feel they've been bullied and intimidated - as I said, Slater & Gordon and Shine Lawyers may be worth putting on phone contact lists! I think this is a storm in a tea cup, but I will stand corrected if proved otherwise. My hunch is this new law is a means to simplify the "reasonable suspicion" law as it stands. Is having a hunch, a gut feeling enough to be called "reasonable suspicion"? In the meantime, get you get your papers in order!

[Adam the Akrodude]

Poopy pants? Is that the best you got? Geez mate, you're slipping! [/quote]

I heard you have farty breath -better?

[Adam the Akrodude]

Ok....to throw a little more petrol on the fire...
There's this:
https://www.3aw.com.au/podcast/there-ar ... on-expert/

this:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -by-pilots

this:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/nationa ... ll-expert/

this:
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/nationa ... -airports/

and this:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/workers ... xousf.html

Now, admittedly some of the articles are a year or more old, but what's changed? Improve the security at airports by all means, just don't keep adding more and more layers to a system that doesn't work properly.

When it comes to layers - I love them in both cakes and security! It's mmmmmm-good! The more layers/screens, the more chance of catching perp's. Obviously any introduced layers must be as efficient as possible otherwise passenger check in and arrivals will get chocked up - pissing off passengers, airlines and airport managers & owners. None of us are security experts as such (as far as I know) but we obviously have professionals here who have or do work in this industry. Me, I'll stand beside the experts and see how this plays out. We've had too many near misses in the past and we can only expect more and more terrorism attempts at airports in the future given all the shit that's been hapening in the ME and beyond. Authorities have obviously recognised there is a shortfall in security at airports and are trying to address this. There are obviously other measures being put in place we do not know about for security reasons. It is very good that there is open and informed discussion about this topic. I think Australia has been very lucky to date.

[tor lives]

actually I think it's great we can have opposing points of view yet still discuss things without vitriol or personal name calling

I would agree.
TOR

I don't agree - poopy pants! - I added a smiley face to make it all good see!

See... there is this little thing about me being the site owner that trumps you not agreeing Poopy Pants Mk2......unless of course you want to ban me, which you have the Admin rights to do .
TOR