Am I the only one upset about this US fingerprinting business???
-
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.
-
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...
What a great soapbox subject. OK, I don't particularly agree, and I don't particularly disagree. The problem boils down to a perception, real or not, of needed security, and a perception, real or not, of violation of privacy. Coupled with this is the "if they do this today, what will they do tomorrow" crowd. I think the important thing to keep in mind is some perspective. Like most things, this is a fad. Technology makes it possible, and technology will change. 100 years from now, we'll all have ID chips implanted in us at birth, the matter will be moot. Disgusting idea, isn't it. Rather than complaining about the sometimes braindead reaction of our policy makers, I think we lose focus as to the people who really should be blamed for this--the ******** that supported the entire effort to do this tragic thing. And it's wrong to blame our lack of intelligence too. That merely reflects human errors and imperfections in a world where a lot of people can't tell right from wrong, and we need to watch them. Marc Latest AAL Article My blog Join my forum!
-
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! Actually, this is not limited to people visiting the US. There is a growing trend among banks and other US institutions, financial and otherwise, to require fingerprints before, say, opening a bank account. For many people here, the problem with this isn't as much an objection to the requirement for a more accurate means of identification as it is the fact that fingerprinting carries a social stigma, since it was once used almost exclusively to track criminals. Much like AIDS being labeled a "homosexual disease", fingerprinting is "just for criminals". Neither statement, of course, has any more than emotional accuracy. As for requiring more identification for visitors, as a US citizen my only objection is that they don't do this for nationals of *all* countries. It's trendy these days to treat America as a target, often times for the same reasons that people love to hate Bill Gates. Consequently, many people come here for the sole purpose of screwing with us. As a very general statement (certainly not targeted at you), I'd say that anyone who is afraid to give their fingerprints should simply stay the hell out of our country. The innocent have nothing to fear in this regard. It's not like we're in desperate need of more people. America. The country people love to hate. At least until they get their green card. Christopher Duncan Today's Corporate Battle Tactic Unite the Tribes: Ending Turf Wars for Career and Business Success The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World
-
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.
Thanks for including a link. There were many opinions stated in response to this thread, and I respect the right of the U.S. citizens to protect themselves from the mindless terrorist attacks. I have been on a business trip to the U.S. few months ago and really felt welcome, even the customs and border protection officers were friendly, I enjoyed my stay. What I find ironic is the fact that the picture is right below the fingerprinting / photo shooting pictues. Don't get me wrong - but to me that picture right below the sequence of the pictures presenting the annoying procedure of being fingerprinted just looks ironic. I wouldn't mind if the fingerprints were a part of a digital passport of the 21st century, or if it was a part of some standard procedures applied worldwide or whatever, I don't know. I just don't like the fact that my confidential data would be filed by authorities of a foreign country, while there was no need to provide fingerprints to any authority of my own country in my whole life, as I didn't commit any crime (yet ;) ). That's all. I don't want to offend anyone. It is just my point of view, and how I feel about it. 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...
Oz Solomonovich wrote: Invalid XML - no closing tag :-) Oz Solomonovich wrote: Am I the only one upset about this US fingerprinting business??? It appears that you are. Personally I agree with the majority, although I'd prefer some sort of guarentee that they use these fingerprints to verify if a person entering is a known criminal and then destroyed, either way they are welcome to my fingerprints. Hell,all they have to do is break into this place ( not so hard ) and grab my keyboard if they want them that bad.... 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! I think you have a valid point overall in terms of civil liberties being under threat in the USA, but I don't think this is such a big problem, and to be honest, if you're not going to the USA because you don't want your prints taken, I'd suggest valium. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Thanks for including a link. There were many opinions stated in response to this thread, and I respect the right of the U.S. citizens to protect themselves from the mindless terrorist attacks. I have been on a business trip to the U.S. few months ago and really felt welcome, even the customs and border protection officers were friendly, I enjoyed my stay. What I find ironic is the fact that the picture is right below the fingerprinting / photo shooting pictues. Don't get me wrong - but to me that picture right below the sequence of the pictures presenting the annoying procedure of being fingerprinted just looks ironic. I wouldn't mind if the fingerprints were a part of a digital passport of the 21st century, or if it was a part of some standard procedures applied worldwide or whatever, I don't know. I just don't like the fact that my confidential data would be filed by authorities of a foreign country, while there was no need to provide fingerprints to any authority of my own country in my whole life, as I didn't commit any crime (yet ;) ). That's all. I don't want to offend anyone. It is just my point of view, and how I feel about it. Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
Radoslav Bielik wrote: I just don't like the fact that my confidential data would be filed by authorities of a foreign country, while there was no need to provide fingerprints to any authority of my own country in my whole life, as I didn't commit any crime It all depends on what you do within your country. There are many places/processes in the U.S. that require fingerprinting. With some jobs, you must have a fingerprint on file. To get a firearm permit, you must have a fingerprint on file.
A rich person is not the one who has the most, but the one that needs the least.
-
Radoslav Bielik wrote: I just don't like the fact that my confidential data would be filed by authorities of a foreign country, while there was no need to provide fingerprints to any authority of my own country in my whole life, as I didn't commit any crime It all depends on what you do within your country. There are many places/processes in the U.S. that require fingerprinting. With some jobs, you must have a fingerprint on file. To get a firearm permit, you must have a fingerprint on file.
A rich person is not the one who has the most, but the one that needs the least.
DavidCrow wrote: It all depends on what you do within your country. There are many places/processes in the U.S. that require fingerprinting. With some jobs, you must have a fingerprint on file. To get a firearm permit, you must have a fingerprint on file. I think this is what makes the difference and what makes me feel uncomfortable about it. There may be some special places / institutions here that require fingerprints on file, but I am not aware of any other than the crime register :) Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
-
Entering another country is a privilege not a right.
// Steve McLenithan
Cluelessnes:
There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots. -
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 don't think about these things very often, and it doesn't really bother me either way unless the wrong people get ahold of my identifying information and use it to harass or cause problems for me. However, while I was reading your post and the responses, an interesting thought crossed my mind... Not so very long ago (100+ years in the US), many people still lived in some small villages where everyone knew each other. What happened when a stranger came to visit? He would get lots of unusual looks, stares, furtive glances, etc. In short, everyone would recognize him as a stranger and treat him with at least mild suspicion until they got to know him or he was vouched for by a trusted local person. This has an interesting parallel to your problem with being fingerprinted upon entrance to the U.S. Both provide an increased level of security, but which would you prefer? -- constantly being watched by everyone around you, or getting fingerprinted when entering the country. As it is now, you have the ability to walk around in mutual stranger-ness after providing a fingerprint or 10. I'm sure that you constantly put up with the increased level of security inherent in (relatively) small groups. You go to work where most people know you. Your home is likely to be very restrictive in this respect. Just think of the freedom you would have if all you had to do was provide fingerprints and then no-one would recognize you after you entered your house! ;P John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
DavidCrow wrote: It all depends on what you do within your country. There are many places/processes in the U.S. that require fingerprinting. With some jobs, you must have a fingerprint on file. To get a firearm permit, you must have a fingerprint on file. I think this is what makes the difference and what makes me feel uncomfortable about it. There may be some special places / institutions here that require fingerprints on file, but I am not aware of any other than the crime register :) Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
Just last year I had to give a digital thumbprint when I renewed my drivers license in California. Also needed to have fingerprints done for a government security check because some of my work requires knowledge of sensitive information. Same at another place of employment when I was required to have a secret clearance because I had access to computers that contained secured data for a company that did research for the military. My (expired) passport also has a thumbprint inside as does my hospital birth certificate (fingers and feet). At least they aren't doing cotton swabs to collect DNA....:~ Steve
-
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...
Well, I have to agree with Marc. It is perception and not assigning you criminal status due to the act. It is merely the best they have to verify your identity. The part that I am upset about is that it does not apply to 100% of the people entering the aircraft. Crew and all. As soon as they show it really does work in 15 seconds, no reason for it not to, I hope they do expand it. From one who has been a victim of identity theft, :mad: I ask if you object to having people show an id to cash your check at your bank. Back to the verification of identity thing. I personally like that fact that they do and am very annoyed at the time they did not. At least a little effort to keep those that wish to do me and my fellow men harm in check. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
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 am sympathetic to your concerns. I am a Canadian Citizen working in the U.S. INS officers (pardon me - Department of Homeland Security officers) aren't exactly friendly to begin with, and having to deal with them at the border is as close as a reaming as I'll ever get I'm sure. But in the same sense, I can't blame them for being paranoid. The American Media has the people here worked up into a frenzy of paranoia. The finger printing isn't going to stop terrorism in the borders by any means. It might catch a few more people than would be caught otherwise, but it won't stop some anonymous radical from entering the country. I just think the Bush administration is trying to do *something* to apease the American Public whether its going to be effective or not. The fact that they fingerprint you and take your picture isn't violating your civil liberties. You are free to do what you want while you are in the country (within legal reason). If they tagged you with a RFID and could bring you up on a giant screen monitor in the annals of the CIA and see you buying that pr0n magazine at the local five-n-dime - well thats something else entirely. Believe me, the American Public will NEVER let that happen. The American Public is quite militant about civil liberties down here.
-
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.
How would you feel if you were finger-printed and strip searched at every airport in the world. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
How would you feel if you were finger-printed and strip searched at every airport in the world. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
I don't think anyone mentioned strip-searches. --Colin Mackay--