However, according to Professor Katina Michael, a tech and biometrics expert at the University of Wollongong, such technology has never been proven in the past to have improved security or efficiency at airports. Michael also added that the plan posed a risk to individual ethical issues and privacy that may not have been properly explained to the public. Professor Michael further stated that, “We are fast-training right through all of these technological transitions and we’re not really thinking about the ramifications. Even if the system works, will it be ethical to impose this system on the entire populace, without even asking them?
I see the perceived benefit, but what I do know is that there will be real costs, human costs, not only through the loss of staff through automation, but also through discrimination of people who may appear different. I am also worried about theft; I think we’ve become almost complacent, ‘oh there’s been another data breach. Oh they hacked in and stole the data.’ Is the next phase of rollout going to be ‘oh my e-health records were taken’, ‘oh my biometrics at border control were taken’?” Michael further added that threats to the security of government-held data, such as the census failure, should raise real concerns about the storage of biometric data as a whole. But other experts say that airports are already the most surveillance-prone, but most biometrics and surveillance systems in place are getting obsolescent. Thus, the government needs to replace the use of the incoming passenger card, eliminate the need for physical tickets at border control, and allow some passengers to travel using technology without the need for human intervention, and perhaps remove the need to present a passport.