Americans must be FINGERPRINTED and PHOTOGRAPHED when entering the EU

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:43:24 +0000 (UTC), ht
wrote:

"PTRAVEL" wrote in news:bo16l5$1613fd$1@ID-
101118.news.uni-berlin.de:

Many of the Europeans participating in this thread seem to
regard the new regulations as some kind of personal insult.

That's pretty much the gist of it. Being fingerprinted is pretty much
saying: "I believe that you are a criminal". Not many appreciate that.

Somebody mentioned having been fingerprinted a number of times,
including when entering the service. I'm in he army here, and have
been so for 25 years, however I've never been fingerprinted. It is
very much a taboo.

Among other reasons for fingeprinting military recruits is to
make it easier to identify your body later.

It's the idea of carrying a national identity card that I find
taboo.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:01:36 +0000 (UTC), ht
wrote:

Marie Lewis wrote in
:

In article , Barbara Vaughan
writes
Don't be hasty. I've just been fingerprinted in Europe, and I'm
not a criminal. When I went to renew my residence permit, I had
to be fingerprinted.

Barbara
You are American, I believe.

Marie, Barbaras point is valid. Basically nobody should be treated as
a potential criminal anywhere, including Europe or the US. It has
basic civic implications regardless where on Earth it is done.

I've been fingerprinted a number of times, the first being when I
went into the Army. My wife and I have had to be fingerprinted
for our foster care license and for several related things. I
take no particular offense, and I presume the prints will be used
to verify I have no arrests for child abuse.


To a great extent, it's a bit silly. I too have been fingerprinted
many times. It's rarely done well. And it is hard to use for very
much after that. For all TV likes to imply, doing a random search of
a database for a finger print is time consuming and really just
is a filter. With out really good (and I mean REALLY good) prints,
you need usually more than just a print to make a one to one match.
A finger print is taken in case during a background check, or
possibly a complaint, or other kind of investigation, some concern
arises about whether you are also someone else. At that point they
have 2 sets of prints to compare, and regardless of quality, they
can usually make a pretty quick determination. I presume this is
the reason for them wanting the prints from foreign nationals. If
a question ever comes up about whether you are the person of interest,
they probably have prints on many of the people they are interested
in, so they can quickly determine if you are that person. However,
it's going to take more than just the print, and unless they are
doing the screening right then and there, by the time they figure
it out, you may be long gone.

Hatunen wrote in
:

Among other reasons for fingeprinting military recruits is to
make it easier to identify your body later.

I don't know whether it's wize, but here all id'ing is basically done
by DNA. Fingerprints are considered obsolete.


Regards,

Hans-Henrik

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:04:34 +0000 (UTC), ht
wrote:

Hatunen wrote in
:

Among other reasons for fingeprinting military recruits is to
make it easier to identify your body later.

I don't know whether it's wize, but here all id'ing is basically done
by DNA. Fingerprints are considered obsolete.

Of course, this has only been true for less than a decade or so.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Magda wrote in
:

They will not be "obsolete" as long as they are cheaper than DNA
testing.

Have you considered the associated cost of personnel having to a) be
trained and b) spend an unpredictable amount of time doing the search,
either by machine or by hand? Doing a DNA profile requires a much more
standardized procedure, and gives more reliable results.


Regards,

Hans-Henrik

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:34:28 +0000 (UTC), ht
wrote:

Magda wrote in
:

They will not be "obsolete" as long as they are cheaper than DNA
testing.

Have you considered the associated cost of personnel having to a) be
trained and b) spend an unpredictable amount of time doing the search,
either by machine or by hand? Doing a DNA profile requires a much more
standardized procedure, and gives more reliable results.

When a body is located after a battle there are usually a limited
number of soldiers it could be. This makes a fingerprint search
much faster. Usually, the fingerprints will be only part of the
identifying evidence.

A DNA profile requires that the military have a previous sample
of DNA already assessed to be compared to, and DNA profiles of
everyone inducted into the service would be rather expensive.

I believe America's Unknown Soldier of Viet Nam was finally
identified by DNA testing in comparison with relatives who
brought the case to the attention of the Army. The body was
removed from the Unknown memorial at Arlington National Cemetery
and there are now no unknown soldiers from the Viet Nam era.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:34:28 +0000 (UTC), ht
wrote:

Magda wrote in
:

They will not be "obsolete" as long as they are cheaper than DNA
testing.

Have you considered the associated cost of personnel having to a) be
trained and b) spend an unpredictable amount of time doing the search,
either by machine or by hand? Doing a DNA profile requires a much more
standardized procedure, and gives more reliable results.

When a body is located after a battle there are usually a limited
number of soldiers it could be. This makes a fingerprint search
much faster. Usually, the fingerprints will be only part of the
identifying evidence.

A DNA profile requires that the military have a previous sample
of DNA already assessed to be compared to, and DNA profiles of
everyone inducted into the service would be rather expensive.

Right before Iraq II, there was a story that folks getting sent
over where having DNA samples taken. Not sure how wide spread
the practice was.


I believe America's Unknown Soldier of Viet Nam was finally
identified by DNA testing in comparison with relatives who
brought the case to the attention of the Army. The body was
removed from the Unknown memorial at Arlington National Cemetery
and there are now no unknown soldiers from the Viet Nam era.
[snip]

Um. Can't find a cite for that claim. I know the one that
was placed there has since been identified, but there was some
discussion at the time of replacing it with another unknown.
The decision was made not to so as to keep the remains available
for future identification, potentially by new means. But my
understanding was that there were still unidentified remains.

On 17 Nov 2003 10:44:17 -0800, (me)
wrote:

Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:34:28 +0000 (UTC), ht

A DNA profile requires that the military have a previous sample
of DNA already assessed to be compared to, and DNA profiles of
everyone inducted into the service would be rather expensive.

Right before Iraq II, there was a story that folks getting sent
over where having DNA samples taken. Not sure how wide spread
the practice was.

Samples are going to do no good unless you know which sample to
process for comparison with your dead guy.

I believe America's Unknown Soldier of Viet Nam was finally
identified by DNA testing in comparison with relatives who
brought the case to the attention of the Army. The body was
removed from the Unknown memorial at Arlington National Cemetery
and there are now no unknown soldiers from the Viet Nam era.
[snip]

Um. Can't find a cite for that claim. I know the one that
was placed there has since been identified, but there was some
discussion at the time of replacing it with another unknown.
The decision was made not to so as to keep the remains available
for future identification, potentially by new means. But my
understanding was that there were still unidentified remains.

Not my understanding at the time. Oh, well.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
(me) wrote:
Right before Iraq II, there was a story that folks getting sent over
where having DNA samples taken. Not sure how wide spread the practice
was.

Samples are going to do no good unless you know which sample to
process for comparison with your dead guy.

Can't the sample be digitized and hashed for rapid matching, or at least
rapid elimination of almost all match candidates?

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

(Miguel Cruz) wrote in message .. .
Hatunen wrote:
(me) wrote:
Right before Iraq II, there was a story that folks getting sent over
where having DNA samples taken. Not sure how wide spread the practice
was.

Samples are going to do no good unless you know which sample to
process for comparison with your dead guy.

Can't the sample be digitized and hashed for rapid matching, or at least
rapid elimination of almost all match candidates?


I suppose. As Mr. Hatunen said about finger prints, the real trick
is narrowing down the suspects to begin with by knowing the few
people it could have been. At that point you have a very finite
set of people to which to compare. They matched to that guy in
the Tomb of the Unknown because they had reason to believe he
was the guy in there before they ever opened it.