Am I the only one upset about this US fingerprinting business???
-
Yah,As Steve said I was hanging around in C# and ASP.NET forums,Today I get free a liitle more and come back to lounge. :) Mazy No sig. available now.
You could always do like I do and "convince" your boss that you're working. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
As a Britsh citizen and US green card holder, I have had my fingerprints taken more times than I can remember. It doesn't bother me at all, since I have nothing to hide. It's just part of the process. They were doing it before 9/11 too. Personally, I think that all new-born babies should be fingerprinted too. Speaking as a citizen from a country that doesn't really have a constitution, I think that the Constitution causes more problems than it solves. Expecially as it hasn't really been updated for 250+ years.
As a small correction, the US Constitution is 217 years old and has been updated several times, both by ammendment and by interpretting provisions in light of changes in our attitudes. The First Ammendment, for example, is interpretted far more broadly than when it was first written. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Get over it. It's a new world after 9/11. Well then, I guess I have my answer. I am the only one worried. Citing 9/11 as a reason to take away basic civil liberties is IMO a huge problem. I understand the need to balance privacy and national security, but where is the limit? Next, they will say: We have a lot of crime. Most of crime is commited by minorities. Let's round them all up and see if any of them are in our database. I'm certain they'll catch a lot of crooks that way. --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
Oz Solomonovich wrote: Well then, I guess I have my answer. Yes, you do. I have no problems with this. How are we supposed to keep our borders safe if we don’t practice a bit of due diligence? People were screaming when they heard how the 911 hijackers were 'let in' to the country and no one did anything. This is doing something. Should you have the right to enter our borders if you are a criminal? NOPE. Then how are we supposed to find out? ASK? Oz Solomonovich wrote: Let's round them all up and see if any of them are in our database. I'm certain they'll catch a lot of crooks that way. I would be all for this also as long as they were only looking for people with outstanding warrants. Hell, screen everyone, finger print everyone. If you are a criminal then you have no right to hide from the law.
Paul Watson wrote: "At the end of the day it is what you produce that counts, not how many doctorates you have on the wall." George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
The fact that I am a US citizen taints my opinion, but here goes. I have no problem with the fingerprinting and I would gladly be fingerprinted to enter or exit any other country. Travelling abroad is a privilidge and countries must be able to protect themselves and control access to their borders as they see fit. At one time I felt the same way you do about banks requiring a fingerprint to cash checks. (You may or may not have this in your country, so I'll explain a little farther just-in-case.) Where I live, some banks require that I place a thumbprint on a check if I wish to cash it, AND I am not an account holder at that bank. This used to just piss me off to no end, but after much throught about it, I have no real problem with it. At least they are being obvious in their security measures. Fingerprint, matching ID, security cameras that are visible, etc. I have a choice to deposit it into my account and get it in a few days, but if I want it immiedately, I have to do what they ask. Really is no big deal. Being a technology person, I see this type of identification as only the beginning. RFID is one technology that offers governments and businesses unprecedented tracking of almost anything. It is mostly invisible (as in not obvious) and allows for a level of tracking that is unheard of. Think about tracking how many $20 bills I have in my pocket. That's a little scary to me. Infared images of faces, ie. facial recognition, is passive and can be done without your knowledge. How does that make you feel? The unfortunante reality is that we do not live in a perfect world and there are people out there who seek to do us/you harm. A major part of every governments job and mission is to protect its citizens. I do not see how asking someone to provide identification (you already must have a passport), particularly a non-citizen, is treating them like a criminal. One can talk about government conspiricies, but at least in the US, such things can't last long since we relect our government (barring supreme court, etc) every 2-6 years. The concept that the government is out-to-get-us, in my opinion is mostly hysteria and has little basis in reality. I trust my government in-so-much that if I do not commit a crime, I have no reason to fear. I, for the most part, trust many other governments on the same basis. That does not make them fair, or reasonable, or even polite, but it is the basis for governments. Just my 2 cents.
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
You do know that as a Canadian citizen and, I presume, a holder of a Canadian passport, you are exempt from being fingerprinted. Visitors from most of Western Europe and Japan are also exempt. I do find it ironic that a holder of a Canadian ID card is complaining about entering the US rather than complaining about the hassles of reentering Canada! (I still remember Canadian roomates from college complaining bitterly about this, especially if one accidentally left his or her card at home during vacation. It was actually easier for US citizens to get into Canada than the Canadians! Of course, this may have changed.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
You could always do like I do and "convince" your boss that you're working. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
No you're definitely not the only one. I just don't think that it is right, nor that it will increase the security a lot. I think that it is demeaning (is this the right word) to be considered a potential criminal. :| The "Welcome to the U.S." picture right below the fingerprinting picture in the pdf brochure on dhs.gov looks a little ironic. :( Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
I'm not concerned about checks, its the accuracy of the checks that concern me. Sadly its the little people who get caught up in these. I remember a case last year of a british tourist (I think it was in South Africa although not certain) who was arrested by the CIA and only resleased when the real criminal was found ! The tigress is here :-D
-
The fact that I am a US citizen taints my opinion, but here goes. I have no problem with the fingerprinting and I would gladly be fingerprinted to enter or exit any other country. Travelling abroad is a privilidge and countries must be able to protect themselves and control access to their borders as they see fit. At one time I felt the same way you do about banks requiring a fingerprint to cash checks. (You may or may not have this in your country, so I'll explain a little farther just-in-case.) Where I live, some banks require that I place a thumbprint on a check if I wish to cash it, AND I am not an account holder at that bank. This used to just piss me off to no end, but after much throught about it, I have no real problem with it. At least they are being obvious in their security measures. Fingerprint, matching ID, security cameras that are visible, etc. I have a choice to deposit it into my account and get it in a few days, but if I want it immiedately, I have to do what they ask. Really is no big deal. Being a technology person, I see this type of identification as only the beginning. RFID is one technology that offers governments and businesses unprecedented tracking of almost anything. It is mostly invisible (as in not obvious) and allows for a level of tracking that is unheard of. Think about tracking how many $20 bills I have in my pocket. That's a little scary to me. Infared images of faces, ie. facial recognition, is passive and can be done without your knowledge. How does that make you feel? The unfortunante reality is that we do not live in a perfect world and there are people out there who seek to do us/you harm. A major part of every governments job and mission is to protect its citizens. I do not see how asking someone to provide identification (you already must have a passport), particularly a non-citizen, is treating them like a criminal. One can talk about government conspiricies, but at least in the US, such things can't last long since we relect our government (barring supreme court, etc) every 2-6 years. The concept that the government is out-to-get-us, in my opinion is mostly hysteria and has little basis in reality. I trust my government in-so-much that if I do not commit a crime, I have no reason to fear. I, for the most part, trust many other governments on the same basis. That does not make them fair, or reasonable, or even polite, but it is the basis for governments. Just my 2 cents.
I've read all the comments posted but I'd like to respond to yours since its so nicely written. Matt Gullett wrote: I do not see how asking someone to provide identification (you already must have a passport), particularly a non-citizen, is treating them like a criminal I was specifically talking about finger prints. I don't mind being identified, but taking my prints is a little more than identifying me. Just the other day I read an interesting article on Wired that had the following point: Identification procedures should just be about that; identifying. If you take my print, that is more than just identifying me. I have never broken the law nor do I intend to, but this bothers me. Because... Matt Gullett wrote: The concept that the government is out-to-get-us, in my opinion is mostly hysteria IMO, you are right. At least for now and for the US. But I look at other countries with less-than-reputable civil liberty records (for example one large far east country..). If I were a US citizen (which I am not) I would want to do everything in my power to ensure the US never gets there. That's what the "right to bare arms" was all about, wasn't it? I'd like to say that I have given my fingerprints willingly multiple times in the past. I find it difficult to articulate why I think those times were different than what we're talking about now (it's one of those classical can't define it, but know it when I see it things). I'll get it a shot anyway: Hypothetically, if you were applying for security clearance, you would be asked for fingerprints. The request is due to an uncommon request on your part. Flying to another country, especially in this century is not an uncommon thing. Most people do it, and quite frequently. Targeting "all travellers", therefore, in my mind, equates to targeting "everybody". And herein lies my problem. In reading some of the replies (not yours Matt, but I'm sure others are reading), I got the "You're not a US citizen, you have no civil liberties here, if you don't like it don't come" vibe. I think, again, that misses the point. Maybe the chioce of the term "civil liberties" wasn't exactly accurate or to the point. I'm just trying to raise an issue of a government starting to collect huge amounts of database about people in a systematic, centralized way. I personally see a danger in that. If you don't, that is your right. --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
There are lots of people in this country upset about security measures such as this. I suspect that fingerprinting foreign travelers will be quietly phased out once it proves to be worthless and a huge headache. Face recognition software in airports has already been tried and scrapped.
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
I'm pretty sure American civil liberties apply to US citizens which are exempt from this fingerprinting. I don't believe the US constitution says anything about not being allowed to protect our borders. Face it, unless you have something to hide, there is no big deal in fingerprinting. Matt Newman If you chose to continue this discussion, I am fully prepared to make you my bitch. I invite you to ask around, and you'll find out that I'm quite capable of doing so - John Simmons on Trolls
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
Is it really the act of fingerprinting that upsets you or the fact that it is the US doing it? Like a previous poster, I'm a UK citizen and a US permanent resident. I've been fingerprinted dozens of times and, without being snide, have to say that your prints are safe with the INS. The incompetance of that particular government office is spectacular! But really, if the US decides that it will fingerprint visitors, then so be it. I never thought it was demeaning when I had to be processed - I understood it was simply the way the system worked. At one time, passports didn't exist for travel. Frankly, I wouldn't mind an International ID card with my picture AND my fingerprint on it - passports are easier to forge than a valid fingerprint (at least I think so!). As far as the US goes, I'm less concerned about having my fingerprints on file than I am about knowing my social security number is barely a phonecall away from almost anyone who wants it! Anyway, for a real s**t-storm of a subject ... what about Amnesty for illegal immigrants ... muahahahahahah. Get the fingerprint machines out!!! Ooops ... that's the Soap Box calling :)
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
Surprised? No. Big brother is very much alive and observing. :) -- If there was a problem, Yo, I'll solve it! Check out the hook while my DJ revolves it.
-
I've read all the comments posted but I'd like to respond to yours since its so nicely written. Matt Gullett wrote: I do not see how asking someone to provide identification (you already must have a passport), particularly a non-citizen, is treating them like a criminal I was specifically talking about finger prints. I don't mind being identified, but taking my prints is a little more than identifying me. Just the other day I read an interesting article on Wired that had the following point: Identification procedures should just be about that; identifying. If you take my print, that is more than just identifying me. I have never broken the law nor do I intend to, but this bothers me. Because... Matt Gullett wrote: The concept that the government is out-to-get-us, in my opinion is mostly hysteria IMO, you are right. At least for now and for the US. But I look at other countries with less-than-reputable civil liberty records (for example one large far east country..). If I were a US citizen (which I am not) I would want to do everything in my power to ensure the US never gets there. That's what the "right to bare arms" was all about, wasn't it? I'd like to say that I have given my fingerprints willingly multiple times in the past. I find it difficult to articulate why I think those times were different than what we're talking about now (it's one of those classical can't define it, but know it when I see it things). I'll get it a shot anyway: Hypothetically, if you were applying for security clearance, you would be asked for fingerprints. The request is due to an uncommon request on your part. Flying to another country, especially in this century is not an uncommon thing. Most people do it, and quite frequently. Targeting "all travellers", therefore, in my mind, equates to targeting "everybody". And herein lies my problem. In reading some of the replies (not yours Matt, but I'm sure others are reading), I got the "You're not a US citizen, you have no civil liberties here, if you don't like it don't come" vibe. I think, again, that misses the point. Maybe the chioce of the term "civil liberties" wasn't exactly accurate or to the point. I'm just trying to raise an issue of a government starting to collect huge amounts of database about people in a systematic, centralized way. I personally see a danger in that. If you don't, that is your right. --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs
I understand your point, and I too am concerned about the growing amount of data that governments and businesses have on me. However, I do not understand how fingerprints are anything but identification. If anything, fingerprints are far better than passports or drivers license, social security numbers, government assigned IDs, or virtually anything else. They do not match to anyone but me, cannot be easily impersonated, and are largely impersonal (ie. not a picture, not DNA, etc). Obvoiusly, they can be matched back, through other identification such as SSN, to my credit history, etc. But in my mind at least, they are one of the more secure methods of identification. Lets say, for sake of argument, that instead of providing a drivers license or SSN to a police officer, a bank, insurer, or whatever, they take a fingerprint. As such, they can only match it to data about me, ie. no identity theft, they should only be able to use 3rd parties to look up information, which through regulation, I should control the amount of data available. Other methods of identification, such as SSN, do not afford these protections. In fact, I would argue, that I would much rather give my fingerprint to a bank than give them my SSN. In fact, in-terms of personal protection, the government could mandate (not that it would or even should) that no corportate entity may store a fingerprint, but must use a clearinghouse to match a fingerprint to corporate-level records. This way, corporations cannot consolidate my information into one place. If your concern is that they are being stored, then I would say, that is the only way they can be used to identify you (ie. the next time you come in to the country, your entry could/should be much easier.) If your concern is that they are being automatically used to search criminal records, etc, I would say that most of us have nothing to fear. I understand that you can say that some countries have lax controls and the possibility of someone sabotaging you is a possibility, but a remote one. And even if they could, they could do the same thing with your passport information, and it would probably be easier. I fully understand your concern, and you have a right to be concerned. You have a right to decide not to enter and you have a right, when in this country (particularly as a citizen) to oppose the use of fingerprints. Unfortunantly, technology is going to make this a moot point because I believe that in a short period of time, identification through bio-informatics will repl
-
I'm sure you've all heard about the new "US Visit" thingy (dhs.gov[^]) where they fingerprint every foreign national that comes into the US. Maybe its government propaganda but every article I read is all full of people saying "yeah; extra security is important blah blah blah" and not a single person shouting out in cry for personal privacy. Even my wife can't understand why I'm upset. The usual US lobby groups probably won't nudge a finger since US citizens aren't being fingerprinted. I find this personally revolting. There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Personally I'm cancelling a trip there and won't be going down south until I get my Canadian passport (as Canadians a exempt from all this BS). Unfortunately, how many people can say they have a Canadian passport waiting for them around the curve? -Oz --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
Oz Solomonovich wrote: There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Finger printing is one of the best methods known to mankind to ensure accurate identification of people. To equate it to purely criminal activity is little bit backward I'm afraid. It's used in many other places where security requires accurate identification. It's use at border crossings is only just a matter of time. Welcome to the 21st century. Chris Meech It's much easier to get rich telling people what they want to hear. Christopher Duncan I can't help getting older, but I refuse to grow up. Roger Wright I've been meaning to change my sig. Thanks! Alvaro Mendez We're more like a hobbiest in a Home Depot drooling at all the shiny power tools, rather than a craftsman that makes the chair to an exacting level of comfort by measuring the customer's butt. Marc Clifton
-
I understand your point, and I too am concerned about the growing amount of data that governments and businesses have on me. However, I do not understand how fingerprints are anything but identification. If anything, fingerprints are far better than passports or drivers license, social security numbers, government assigned IDs, or virtually anything else. They do not match to anyone but me, cannot be easily impersonated, and are largely impersonal (ie. not a picture, not DNA, etc). Obvoiusly, they can be matched back, through other identification such as SSN, to my credit history, etc. But in my mind at least, they are one of the more secure methods of identification. Lets say, for sake of argument, that instead of providing a drivers license or SSN to a police officer, a bank, insurer, or whatever, they take a fingerprint. As such, they can only match it to data about me, ie. no identity theft, they should only be able to use 3rd parties to look up information, which through regulation, I should control the amount of data available. Other methods of identification, such as SSN, do not afford these protections. In fact, I would argue, that I would much rather give my fingerprint to a bank than give them my SSN. In fact, in-terms of personal protection, the government could mandate (not that it would or even should) that no corportate entity may store a fingerprint, but must use a clearinghouse to match a fingerprint to corporate-level records. This way, corporations cannot consolidate my information into one place. If your concern is that they are being stored, then I would say, that is the only way they can be used to identify you (ie. the next time you come in to the country, your entry could/should be much easier.) If your concern is that they are being automatically used to search criminal records, etc, I would say that most of us have nothing to fear. I understand that you can say that some countries have lax controls and the possibility of someone sabotaging you is a possibility, but a remote one. And even if they could, they could do the same thing with your passport information, and it would probably be easier. I fully understand your concern, and you have a right to be concerned. You have a right to decide not to enter and you have a right, when in this country (particularly as a citizen) to oppose the use of fingerprints. Unfortunantly, technology is going to make this a moot point because I believe that in a short period of time, identification through bio-informatics will repl
My problem with fingerprints is that I leave them everywhere I go. It's just a matter of my physiology... ;P Personally, I'd be happy to give a retina scan. At least I have control over that. It can be used to identify me, but I control who has access to it. I'm sure that its every bit as accurate as a fingerprint. Matt Gullett wrote: If your concern is that they are being automatically used to search criminal records, etc, I would say that most of us have nothing to fear Again, I'm against the stance of "If you have nothing to hide, let me search you". I'm no philosopher nor am I a sociologist or polition, but I can easily see the wrong in the state having too many powers. I just can't argue it that well as the aformentioned types. Last year there was a series of rapes in a certain part of Toronto. If what you are saying is right (i.e. you shouldn't have a problem if you have nothing to hide), then perhaps the police should have stopped every man living in a 5 mile radius and asked for a DNA sample? That just seems wrong to me. --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
-
Assume for a minute that I work for a company that has customers in the US. I must fly to a US site to work on some problem. I can refuse and loose my job. Sure, its a privilege. Sure, I have the right not to go (and as you see in my original post, I'm excercising that right). But that's not the point. I'm complaining about the concept. In my book, this move by the US is just a prelude to more horrible things. I'm not a doomsday scenario kind of guy, but I think governments should be limited in these areas before we get 1984 in 2004. --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs.com to make your VC6 experience that much more comfortable...
Do you have a better solution? Remember what the goal is. If your solution puts convenience above anything else, it is potentially flawed. The same folks that are screaming about being inconvenienced are the very same folks that are quickest to scream about bad things happening to our country because such-and-such process was not put in place. I have absolutely no problem with foreigners being IDd and/or fingerprinted before entering my country. I don't care if it does cost them an extra hour or so at the border. As has already been pointed out, having access to our country is not a right, and thus certain prices must be paid.
A rich person is not the one who has the most, but the one that needs the least.
-
I've read all the comments posted but I'd like to respond to yours since its so nicely written. Matt Gullett wrote: I do not see how asking someone to provide identification (you already must have a passport), particularly a non-citizen, is treating them like a criminal I was specifically talking about finger prints. I don't mind being identified, but taking my prints is a little more than identifying me. Just the other day I read an interesting article on Wired that had the following point: Identification procedures should just be about that; identifying. If you take my print, that is more than just identifying me. I have never broken the law nor do I intend to, but this bothers me. Because... Matt Gullett wrote: The concept that the government is out-to-get-us, in my opinion is mostly hysteria IMO, you are right. At least for now and for the US. But I look at other countries with less-than-reputable civil liberty records (for example one large far east country..). If I were a US citizen (which I am not) I would want to do everything in my power to ensure the US never gets there. That's what the "right to bare arms" was all about, wasn't it? I'd like to say that I have given my fingerprints willingly multiple times in the past. I find it difficult to articulate why I think those times were different than what we're talking about now (it's one of those classical can't define it, but know it when I see it things). I'll get it a shot anyway: Hypothetically, if you were applying for security clearance, you would be asked for fingerprints. The request is due to an uncommon request on your part. Flying to another country, especially in this century is not an uncommon thing. Most people do it, and quite frequently. Targeting "all travellers", therefore, in my mind, equates to targeting "everybody". And herein lies my problem. In reading some of the replies (not yours Matt, but I'm sure others are reading), I got the "You're not a US citizen, you have no civil liberties here, if you don't like it don't come" vibe. I think, again, that misses the point. Maybe the chioce of the term "civil liberties" wasn't exactly accurate or to the point. I'm just trying to raise an issue of a government starting to collect huge amounts of database about people in a systematic, centralized way. I personally see a danger in that. If you don't, that is your right. --- Grab WndTabs from http://www.wndtabs
Oz Solomonovich wrote: I don't mind being identified, but taking my prints is a little more than identifying me. Given that no two prints are identical, the only thing it does is identify you. If you meant something else, please explain.
A rich person is not the one who has the most, but the one that needs the least.
-
No you're definitely not the only one. I just don't think that it is right, nor that it will increase the security a lot. I think that it is demeaning (is this the right word) to be considered a potential criminal. :| The "Welcome to the U.S." picture right below the fingerprinting picture in the pdf brochure on dhs.gov looks a little ironic. :( Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
Radoslav Bielik wrote: The "Welcome to the U.S." picture right below the fingerprinting picture in the pdf brochure on dhs.gov looks a little ironic. What's ironic (most folks misuse this word!) about it? You are welcome to the U.S. only after the security precautions have been completed.
A rich person is not the one who has the most, but the one that needs the least.
-
Oz Solomonovich wrote: There's no reason in the world I should be treated like a criminal (or even potential criminal) just because I want to enter the states! Finger printing is one of the best methods known to mankind to ensure accurate identification of people. To equate it to purely criminal activity is little bit backward I'm afraid. It's used in many other places where security requires accurate identification. It's use at border crossings is only just a matter of time. Welcome to the 21st century. Chris Meech It's much easier to get rich telling people what they want to hear. Christopher Duncan I can't help getting older, but I refuse to grow up. Roger Wright I've been meaning to change my sig. Thanks! Alvaro Mendez We're more like a hobbiest in a Home Depot drooling at all the shiny power tools, rather than a craftsman that makes the chair to an exacting level of comfort by measuring the customer's butt. Marc Clifton
Chris Meech wrote: It's used in many other places where security requires accurate identification. Yeah, just think how upset he'd be if he worked for a company that had a fingerprint machine at the door, and had to use it 2+ times per day!
A rich person is not the one who has the most, but the one that needs the least.