3 ms·
The article DOES address this, you just missed it. > Given that none of these people would have actually committed a terrorist act yet distinguishing the innoc
by peeters 15y ago
The article DOES address this, you just missed it.
> Given that none of these people would have actually committed a terrorist act yet distinguishing the innocent false positives from the guilty might be a non-trivial, and invasive task.
Invading the privacy of (or refusing travel to) the 99.99% false positives IS punishing the innocent. The article does not succumb to the false dichotomy you describe.
- jessriedel 15y agoThat's why I carefully said "implication". He doesn't come out and say it because it would be wrong; he just tries to slander by association. Furthermore, the FAST data will not result in the refusal of travel (without further evidence) nor will it result in an invasion of privacy which we do not already allow at random. The author is purposefully confusing logically separate issues in order to confuse the reader. The author's argument, as stated, could be directed at any form of intelligence gathering by TSA whatsoever, an obviously wrong conclusion.