Sunday, 23 March 2008

Gulag 5

I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with BAA's plans to fingerprint passengers using the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Yes, it's a private company, they will destroy the images each night, and anyway, you can always use a different airport if you wish.

But when the government privatised BAA it kept the group intact. It's not too easy to use an alternative airport company.

But there's more:

But BAA says the fingerprinting at Terminal 5 has been installed under orders from the Government.

It says a working group, which included the Home Office's Borders and Immigration Agency, decided it was the "most robust system" to protect Britain's borders.

Oh yes?
But last night the Home Office denied ordering Heathrow to fingerprint passengers.
So who's right? I don't believe for a moment that BAA won't give the fingerprints to the government if asked.

Here's a deal: why don't the directors of BAA issue a bond, guaranteed by a Swiss bank, that will pay any passenger £1 million should their data be passed on to the state?

In the meantime, it's Luton or Kings Cross.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Yes, but see today's blog on ID cards.

31 March 2008, 16:46:39 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

A bit uncomfortable, David? With the new surveillance society?

30 March 2008, 12:21:24 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

They'll treat the images with the same disdain as the luggage?

27 March 2008, 23:36:00 GMT
– Like – Reply

Andrew Duffin
"they will destroy the images each night" 
Aye, right.

23 March 2008, 16:29:15 GMT