"Simon Elliott" wrote in message
...
Dick Locke writes
The AP story on this says:

" Foreigners also will be checked as they leave the country as an
extra security measure and to ensure they complied with visa
limitations."

There could actually be an advantage here for law abiding visitors who
want to return to the US. If the new system accurately records the
departure time, it would provide confirmation that visitors had not
overstayed their visa.

I'm shocked to find myself in general agreement with the program
provided they can meet their claims for speed and that they treat
false failures as a learning tool rather than shrugging shoulders and
saying, "Oh well, we're at war."

IMHO the system needs to be 'sold' to visitors. In many countries, one's
fingerprints are only taken when one has dealings with the police. There
are assumptions of criminality. (I gather from posts here that this
isn't always the case in the US.) Immigration procedures are often the
first impression a visitor has of a country, and it makes no sense at
all to **** people off for no good reason.

As a system which "keeps honest people honest" it probably has its
merits. But will it have any value beyond that? Some reservations which
come to my mind:

1/ Fingerprints are quite easily changed. Retina scanning equipment is
coming rapidly down in price and would be much harder to fool.

I'm not sure that fingerprints are so easily changed. However, a
significant factor in the US is that fingerprint identification is accepted
as proof of identity as a matter of law in US courts. Retinal scans, as far
as I'm aware, are not. Though the latter may be more accurate, until it has
been tested, judicially, enough times, it wouldn't automatically be
considerable admissible evidence.


2/ Are fingerprints of all that many serious undesirables on record?

In the US, yes. As you indicated, fingerprinting is fairly routine in the
US and, to a great extent, fingerprint databases have been consolidated. Of
course, any criminal activity will generate a fingerprint record, e.g.
arrest (with or without subsequent conviction). However, many other
activities will result in a fingerprint record being created: obtaining a
drivers license or state ID in many states, obtaining a professional
license, becoming a naturalized citizen, etc.


3/ Who will be able to access the data? If I were visiting the US to go
backpacking in Yosemite, I wouldn't be all that bothered about this. But
what about a highly sensitive business trip where I could be covered in
embarrassment (or worse) if anyone found out?

This is an issue that concerns Americans as well as foreign visitors. I
don't care if the FBI has access to my fingerprint information, but I'd be
more concerned if, for example, insurance companies, credit reporting
agencies, etc., had access to personal government-collected data. In the
US, the right to travel between states is protected by the Constitution.
This protection does not extend to foreign travel by US citizens (at least
as the Constitution is currently interpretted -- this is why the US
government can prevent US citizens from travelling to Cuba), nor does it
apply to foreign visitors coming to the US. Admission to the US (or, for
that matter, any sovereign nation) is at the sufferance of the government --
permission can be granted or denied. Accordingly, there is no "right" to
enter the US anonymously nor, for that matter, can I think of any other
nation which affords this as a right. I do agree, though, that safeguarding
entry information from, as in your example, business competitors is in the
interest of the US government. What company would want to do business here
if their competitors could find out what they're up to?


4/ Will the land borders be covered?

I would assume yes, though our land borders are notoriously porous.

--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/