Forum Archive Index - September 2001

["Andrew Dengel" <adengel@clear.net.nz>]

Jeremy,

I can never quite understand the thought processes behind arguments like the
one you put up, although I agree that it exsists,  especially after recent
events public opinion might sway towards this technology. I am a firm
believer in "if you have nothing to hide then why be afraid" if it meant the
difference between a retina scan at the airport or some nutter crashing a
plane into the building I work in then I know which I would rather have! And
if someone who doesnt know me from a bar of soap gets his thrills by knowing
I had lunch at McDonalds then good luck to him.
Somehow I dont think it will go that far though, conspiracy theorists seem
to think that everyone cares what they are doing? They dont.
I would rather be/feel safe at the end of the day and I think more and more
people are feeling the same way, if it means having photos on driving
licences, or stricter more technologically based controls at airports and
suchlike then so be it, after all its no different to a passport only harder
to copy/defraud, I say it should be a good investment in the middle to long
term.

Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy" <jeremy@electrosilk.net>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [sharechat] Security - growth industry !!


> From: nickkearney@xtra.co.nz
>
> > This is not a reaction from the WTC debacle.
> > This stuff has been around for years.
> > Some countries have trialled retina scans for customs.
>
> > What the WTC situation does is give these people justification
> > for implementing such devices.  They wait on the sidelines until
> > something like this and the utilise it to their advantage.
>
> Which is precisely the point of why this is a dumb idea, and more
> importantly why it is a dumb idea to invest in it.
>
> Just prior to this, a number of governments in USA legislated against
street
> camera based biometrics.  There is a strong feeling against such
technology
> in the US, and if it is not accepted there, it will never be a really big
> success.
>
> The promoters of the technology jump onto the band-wagon now and push it
for
> all it is worth.  But because of the underlying hostility, interest will
> wane fairly quickly as will their share price.
>
> There is a lot of security technology out there for airport use.  Some is
> established and works well, eg the low level X-Ray imaging equipment and
> metal detectors.  Other technology has been around for years and is still
> marginal, such as NMR explosives detectors and mass spectrograph chemical
> detectors (basically glorified research projects for universities)  The
new
> biometrics rank behind these in practicality and market growth.
>
> The main reason biometrics will falter is because the other technologies
are
> not seen as intruding on privacy.  A metal detector doesn't identify you,
it
> just says if you are carrying a gun. Biometrics says that because your
> retina scan doesn't match, you are a bad guy whether or not you are
carrying
> a gun.  Plus biometrics says you withdrew $100 from the ATM, used it to
buy
> a cheeseburger at McDonalds and perfume for your girfriend at the
department
> store before walking down the high street at 12:43, stopping to look at
the
> magazine rack at the newsagent.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market
investors
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.