We need barcodes damnit! Names do not constitute a good or unique identifier thank you very much. When they come up with a chip or barcode that you can have instead of the 500 cards / ID / username / passwords I'll be the first in line to sell my soul to Big Brother.
And they could have a starting identifier that would be recognizable by the system, so it would know that "this is a bar code for this system." We could pick a number at random, say, "666"...and then we could mark it on everyone!
While this kind of setup would, in fact, inevitably be a disaster of biblical proportions, you're probably the last perosn I would expect to have a *religious* objection to it.
Which is too bad, because anything those morons make themselves look like idiots over is, by default, something worth doing. The problem here is stopped-clock syndrome, where they're morons making themselves look even more stupid than usual, but they're right that it's a bad idea even though they're totally, completely, insanely wrong about *why*.
See, where you see an amusing chance for the religious crazies making themselves look even loonier, I see the chance for a dangerous religious backlash that could set our technology back 50 years. I like your version better, to be honest.
It amuses me that people who are considered *really* dangerous aren't on the list, because they might be alerted to the fact that they were known to be dangerous if they were stopped from boarding.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 03:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 03:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 03:56 pm (UTC)I do know, however, that it would produce a religious fundamentalist panic the likes of which you haven't seen since the Equal Rights Amendment was first proposed.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 03:59 pm (UTC)Which is too bad, because anything those morons make themselves look like idiots over is, by default, something worth doing. The problem here is stopped-clock syndrome, where they're morons making themselves look even more stupid than usual, but they're right that it's a bad idea even though they're totally, completely, insanely wrong about *why*.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 04:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 08:03 pm (UTC)ah okay
Date: 2007-07-03 03:23 pm (UTC)Sounds simple enough.
I vote everyone in the world change their name to John Jacob Jinglehammer Schmidt.
Re: ah okay
Date: 2007-07-03 03:39 pm (UTC)Re: ah okay
Date: 2007-07-03 03:58 pm (UTC)Re: ah okay
Date: 2007-07-03 05:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 05:16 pm (UTC)Re: ah okay
Date: 2007-07-03 04:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 04:47 pm (UTC)It's still a crock of shit either way, but we're not responsible for this particular bit of insanity, its all yours up there...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 05:01 pm (UTC)What this means is that the kid could be barred because of:
The Canadian no-fly idiocy
The airline's no-fly idiocy
The USA's no-fly idiocy.
And there's no way for him to know which.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 05:28 pm (UTC)(Need to find out which airlines do that, on general principles...)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 05:19 pm (UTC)I'll bet these guys would give me their credit card numbers for my "security audit" if I asked them nicely enough.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 06:34 pm (UTC)Well, there's something wrong right there. The poor kid's name is Alistair?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 07:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-03 10:00 pm (UTC)