Nobody

Brian wrote:
    > So how can we identify a person other than fingerprints? Passports, DLs, and
    > every other form of ID have been no problem to duplicate for terrorists.

And just how will the usa verify your fingerprints ? If you're a foreigner who
has never been to the USA, your fingerprints will be "virgin". So terrorists
will now know that they can only travel once to the USA since on a second
attempt, they might be spotted.

Where this would make a difference is if someone with same fingerprints enters
with different identity. They might be able to spot them.

What remains to be seen is whether computers really have the ability to match
fingerprints in real-time over such a high volume database since it won't be
just criminals anymore, it will be all visitors.

Where will it stop ? Will the USA then ask for a blood sample so that they can
register your complete DNA ?

Marie Lewis

    > >
    > > How exactly does fingerprinting help? Only if you have two fingerprints
to
    > > _compare_.
    > What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
    > valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
    > discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.

They were not going to the USA, or even entering Spain. They lived there.
Like the 911 culprits. And they had full visas.
    > jay
    > Sat Apr 03, 2004
    > mailto:[email protected]
    > > One specimen (the person entering the country), one certified by
    > > an authority that it belongs to that individual. If they match -> OK, if
    > > they don't match -> fake! But if they only have the one, the authorities
    > > can't tell anything from it. "Hello, here's my fake passports, hello,
    > > here's my thumb". What's the point?
    > >
    > > > Passports,
    > > > DLs, and every other form of ID have been no problem to duplicate for
    > > > terrorists.
    > >
    > > How about procedures which can identify counterfeit passports? Methods
    > > exist, it would make sense, and there wouldn't be protests against
putting
    > > them in place, as it wouldn't involve storing information about innocent
    > > individuals in government databases.
    > >
    > > Regards

Marie Lewis

"Magda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:29:44 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, AJC <[email protected]>
arranged some
    > electrons, so they looked like this :
    > ... Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
    > ... former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
    > ... any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.
    > I have had my 10 fingerprints taken when I got my first identity card at
18. That card had
    > a big print (including sides) of my right thumb right under my picture. I
didn't feel I
    > was being treated as a criminal at all. I wasn't intending to get in
trouble anyway, so I
    > was glad that if an identity mistake happened, the police already had my
fingerprints and
    > could prove my innocence.
In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having committed a
crime.
That is why we object.

Nobody

Peter Kemp wrote:
    > I'm just glad I get an exemption from the process thanks to a nice
    > shiny government visa, because otherwise I would *ot* come to the US

I thought it was currently the opposite: all those entering on a visa are fingerprinted.
In october, it will be all travellers whether on a real visa, or a 90 day visa waiver.

Marie Lewis

"Gordon Forbess" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:27:28 +0200, "Oelewapper" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >Dear allies, welcome to the age of digital fascism...
    > Fingerprinting (in the form of taking a digital thumbprint) is not
    > uncommon within the US (government, banks, notarizing legal papers,
    > etc.) and rarely provokes shrill cries of "digital fascism."
    > Most Americans realize that true "digital fascism" is a requirement to
    > carry a National Identification Card. :-)


Most British people realise that one should neither have fingerprints taken
unless accused of a crime, nor carry an identity card.

James Robinson

Chad Irby wrote:
    >
    > AJC wrote:
    >
    > > Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
    > > former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
    > > any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.
    >
    > Check up on Brazil, then. They were complaining about fingerprinting
    > people from Brazil coming into the US, but neglected to note that they
    > already fingerprint and photograph *all* of their own citizens.

Does that somehow make it better? Note he said a "big brother" regime.

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

Mtravelkay

Marie Lewis wrote:

    >
    > In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having committed a
    > crime.
    > That is why we object.
    >

In this country they are also used as a means of identification.
Different country, different processes. Isn't the UK a leader in street
camera survelience?

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Oelewapper
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Go Fig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:030420040850279032%[email protected]...
    >
    > > What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
    > > valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
    > > discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.
    >
    > Ex post : yes, maybe - but only when justified, and within a decent judicial
    > framework
    > Ex ante: NEVER !!! Not where I wanna live anyway...

How do you feel about the gov mandating you to tell them where you live
?

jay
Sat Apr 03, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


    >
    > -----
    > >> Air America: The greatest CIA-operation ever !!! <<
    >
    >

patLB

    > On the other hand, you could always visit Spain, and relax on their
    > nice, safe, high-speed trains. Or the ones in France.

Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...

PatLB

Nobody

Alan Pollock wrote:
    > Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.

You know, I am amazed at the transformation of the USA. In the past, the mere
mention of a national identity card would make the republicans rabid,
professing that such a card would infringe on the rights of freedom and
liberty (etc etc).

It is interesting that those very same people today are calling anyone who is
against the current regime's measures "unpatriotic" even those measures
actually do infronge on many of the basic principles of the USA (right to fair
trial, innocent until proven guilty etc).

While a citizen has some power over his government in case of abuses, a
visitor does not. So if the US regime misuses its own citizens information,
you can eventually boot them out (or even impeach them). But for travellers,
they have no such right.

This is especially true when a regime does not have modern data privacy laws
and can essentially do as it wishes with the personal data it collects.

Lets turn the tables around: lets say that the Taliban had required all
visitors to be fingerprinted and photographed when they visited Afghanistan.
Then, they would choose an american indentity at random and proceed to murder
some prominent person in the USA, making sure that they leave some innocent
person's fingerprints as well as wearing a mask making the real guilty person
look like the innocent.


That is why, if you are going to leave personal information with a government,
you must have trust that the government will not misuse that information. The
current USA regime has broken that trust because it has misused the information.

Look at the Jetblue personal information which had been meant to stay within
one department for study, but not only spread to other departments, but was
also handed over to some consulting firm that not only analysed the data but
also displayed privated information in their examples during a presentation at
a conference.

Gordon Forbess

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 20:34:38 +0100, "Marie Lewis"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Most British people realise that one should neither have fingerprints taken
    >unless accused of a crime, nor carry an identity card.

There is a stigma attached to fingerprinting, but I doubt in a few
years it will be the predominant method of digital identification. A
simple photo will suffice without any inconvenience to the subject.

I have heard London offers the opportunity to be on surveillance video
more than any other major city.

Gordon

Chad Irby

In article <[email protected]>,
"Marie Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Chad Irby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > And the funny thing is, the people who are complaining about the US
    > > wanting photos and fingerprints to come in are often from countries that
    > > already insist on that for their own citizens (like Brazil).
    > >
    > No they are not! They are from Europe and from your "ally" the UK, where
    > fingerprints denote one's being a suspected criminal.

...or defending your home from violent criminals gets you put in jail...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Nobody

James Robinson wrote:
    > How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

That is in fact quite different. Registration of firearm is no different from
registration of a car or aircraft. Since since all three are dangerous and
kill (with the firearm designed for the sole purpose fo killing and giving no
transportation or other benefit), it is only normal that a government would
want to ensure that you are qualified to operate such a device by requiring registration.

But if a government captures your own body's information (fingerprints, DNA,
eye retina scan etc), then they "own" part of your body/identity.

Chad Irby

In article <[email protected]>,
"Marie Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Chad Irby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > If people were worried about bureaucratic nosiness, they wouldn't go to
    > > most of Europe in the first place.
    >
    > You show your ignorance.

No, I show that *you* apparently don't know anything about your own home
country, or how it really compares to the US...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

In article <[email protected]>,
"Marie Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Chad Irby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <P%[email protected]>,
    > > "Lennart Petersen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > 99% ? Interesting. I transferred recently in 6 minutes from
    > > > International to domestic including security check. Was in
    > > > Sandefjord Norway. How many transfers international-domestic are
    > > > done in less 6 minutes in U.S?
    > >
    > > You're taking a very unusual example (EU internal transfers), and
    > > pretending that it's common worldwide.
    > >
    > > Now, *that's* interesting.
    > >
    > Take a look at the previous post.

I did. It's even funnier. He's comparing a country that has less
international airline passengers per year than *Orlando*, which isn't
even in the top 5 international airports in the US...

Why are the lines longer to get into the US? Because more people *fly*
there. And, by the way, we're having a record year for tourism of all
types...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.