Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

....so was the light bulb at first. I read the test results were
encouraging. Didn't they pick out six of ten test faces entering the
baseball world series nearly two years ago... I'd assume they got even
better since...

Tim K

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Tim Kroesen wrote:
You're going to have a camera soon at the entrance to every major
public
portal with very advanced facial recognition s/w behind it. It is
in
use already.

And so far the technology is a resounding failure.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world:
http://travel.u.nu

Stephen Harding wrote:

Well the US and Europe are going their separate ways. I'm hoping
the divorce is a rapid one personally, and certainly better for
both I've come to believe.

There is an old saying that people who fail to learn from history are
destined to repeat it.

In the case of isolationism, the US has tried that numerous times
before, and has thoroughly regretted it each time. You had better
rethink you position.

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

George Z. Bush wrote:


You might be right if the world was driven only by political idealogies.
Unfortunately, we live in a global economy, like it or not, and it'll be a

very

cold day in hell when US corporations divorce themselves from their
international trading partners. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to
happen, 'cause it's not going to happen any time soon.

Absolutely true. I was speaking only in a political alliance
sense.

The business world is global and there's no getting around it,
nor should we want to. I'm all for businesses fighting it out
around the world, but no American blood or treasure to keep
some government in power or feeling secure; that means S.
Korea, Taiwan, Japan or even UK if it came to such a thing.

It means no NATO, WTF, IMF, World Bank or whatever. UN is OK
for debating practice.

Back to good old George Washington's admonition, "no entangling
foreign alliances".


That'd be peachy keen in his day, when it took a couple of months to cross the
Atlantic, but now it's only a couple of hours via SST. The world has changed,
and no one has yet discovered how to make the clock run backwards in order for
us to not have to make adjustments.

George Z.

Not quite that bad. Now that they've junked the SSTs it's a safer
place. Still hours but a reasonable number of them. FFM

....all fingerprints monitor is what you do also... BTW; you do NOT own
left behind fingerprints. Only those engaged in illegal activity have
any fears. Fingerprints are much more reliable ID than multiple
witnesses seeing your face. Proven in courtrooms all the time,
fingerprints are second only to DNA as reliable proof of identity.
Retinal patterns are said to be even more reliable than fingerprints as
ID but no sizable dbase exists at present to make it useful.

Tim K

"mtravelkay" wrote in message
. com...
Eryk wrote:

mtravelkay


I see.. you can't visit the US because you believe that taking
fingerprints and photos is treating you like a criminal, but you
have no
complaints about living in a country with street cameras???


Of course not. Cameras monitor what you 'do', they do not
intrusively probe
into who you are.

So, how is this less obtrusive than a still photo at Immigration?


I 'own' my identity and I resent people trespassing into
it ...I do not 'own' my publicably observable actions in the same
sense
since I choose to project those actions into the public domain when
I do
whatever it is the cameras record me doing. It is the difference
between
someone taking a photo of your house from the street without
specific
consent (acceptable) and someone walking into your bedroom and
photographing
you in bed without specific consent (unacceptable). One is invasive,
the
other is merely observation.

How do you compare taking a photo at Immigration with intruding into
your bedroom?

In article , nobody
wrote:

It gives the illusion of enhancing security. Secondly, and more importantly
GET OVER IT. 9-11 was many years ago.

Two and a half is not "many."

Unless you're Lenny from "Of Mice and Men," of course.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

How can we appease the libertines then who reject fingerprints as
intrusive??? Better profiling...g

Tim K

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
Since the current advanced facial recognition software will result in
innumerable false positives using that trash could easily shut down
the
airline industry. FFM

Tim Kroesen wrote:

You're going to have a camera soon at the entrance to every major
public
portal with very advanced facial recognition s/w behind it. It is
in
use already. So much for your fingerprints...

Tim K

"mtravelkay" wrote in message
. com...

Gary L. Dare wrote:


Actually, screening has turned up 200 people on various offences.

Did the photo or the fingerprints accomplish this??? I suspect it

wasn't

the photo.
So, are you suggesting that it would be ok for cops to stop people
at
will on the the street and scan their fingerprints? After all, if
you
can 200 at the airports, imagine how many you can catch if you
fingerprint everyone at Major League Baseball games. How many of

those

200 offenses had ANYTHING to do with terrorism? I would bet none of

them.

Chad Irby wrote:

But in modern practical political terms, "liberal" has been co-opted by
the left as "their" term. In the US, when someone is referred to as
"liberal," it means they support policies on the left side of the
spectrum, and often the *far* left side.

No. It's simpler than that. A "Liberal" is simply a label for someone
who disagrees with you. It has supplanted the appellation "communist"
or "Pinko" as a popular insult. Kind of like when people were called
"gay" or "sluts" as the ultimate insult in high school, whether it was
true or not.

Modern leftists are certainly *not* classical liberals, and often
support the most extreme examples of fascism (the liberals of the 1930s
would throw a fit if they saw some of the folks modern self-described
"liberals" are supporting).

True liberals would be in Iraq, working to help get rid of the last of
Saddam's crew, instead of trying to tell us that we should leave them in
place.

The interesting thing about this current debate is that the
conservatives, who traditionally were vociferous supporters of
individual rights, minimalist government, and freedom, are the ones who
are pushing for individual identity cards, government databases of
personal information, and further government intrusion into daily life
in the name of security. The so-called Liberals, who traditionally
supported things like firearm registration, legislation on what people
can and cannot do, and bigger government, are the ones who are fighting
the expanded powers of the government. It's almost a role reversal.

Tracking people ***doing*** what ??? The real point is being evaded...

Who cares if a policeman observes you cross the street if you're not
jaywalking???

Tim K

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

"Big Brother" is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. Again,
being a
democracy, does it make it better that they take photos and
fingerprints
from everybody?

But I don't see you complaining about the *real* Big Brother problem
of
all of the security cameras in England...

I don't consider that a particular problem, since they aren't
automatically tracking my whereabouts. It is no worse than the
systems
already in place in the US. Have you looked at the ceiling in your
local Walmart to see how many cameras they have?

The problem I have with taking fingerprints is that they are
specifically using them to track people, and marry up to central
databases of info on what I read in libraries, who I send Emails to,
and
what I purchase with my credit card. That is a much more insidious
agenda than simply replacing the beat policeman's eyes with a camera.

Good idea. Let's all pass out assault weapons so the terrorists
can get
hold of them more easily. And don't register them, so you can't
find
them.

Another fool who thinks that outlawing and/or registering firearms
will
keep criminals and terrorists from getting them...

My intent was to expose the inconsistency in your argument. You have
no
problem with the government tracking peoples movements and maintaining
a
database on your activities, but complain about the simple
registration
of firearms, when you acknowledge that is a waste of time.

Stephen Harding wrote:

There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

Kind of like how the US left countries like Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile,
Argentina, Grenada, Egypt, and many others, to chart their own course
when they were democracies?

Then why do other countries not need finger prints?

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is? Every whacko prefers to go after number one, and
that would be the US.

The policies of the Bush government have only increased that likelihood,
by acting unilaterally, and in continuing the biased treatment of Arab
countries in the region. At one time the US had a moral standing in the
world that was envied. It was the belief that diplomacy was the most
important approach to a problem, and violence was only the last resort,
when all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted. The attack on Iraq
has eliminated that unique position, and lowered the US to the ranks of
other bullies around the world. It was so unnecessary, and it will take
many years to regain the confidence of the rest of the world.

Stephen Harding wrote:

Marie Lewis wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Far more have been killed in Europe and over a longer period. Somehow, we
seem to be able n ot to get our knickers in such a twist as you, who thought
you were invulnerable.
I am sorry for those who lost loved ones: but I fear the over reaction is
both intrusive and useless in catching terrorists.

Crapola! No one had experienced a 9/11 scale event!

The Spanish were quite rightly traumatized by the 3/11
experience that killed "only" 200, and they have had
quite a bit of terrorist experience over the past 30
years.

Let's see. When you consider the 3/11 deaths as a proportion of the
Spanish population, you come pretty close to the ratio of 9/11 to the US
population. It might not be at the same total, but would have a similar
effect on the views of the population. 3/11 becomes their day of infamy.

Beyond that, how do you think the Iraqis feel about the multiple attacks
on their country by the US leaving thousands dead and raining missiles
around their homes? That would be pretty traumatic, wouldn't it?
There's nothing like a battle on home soil.

Your "long suffering Europe/what's the big deal USA"
line doesn't carry much weight with me.

Your insensitivity to the effects of two world wars on the European
landscape is pretty obvious. The US has led a charmed existence for the
last hundred years, with no major wars fought on its home soil. It's no
reason to denigrate the people who have survived such things.