US fingerprint & photograph all foreign visitors except those on visa waiver

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

snip

So a self-service system for registering exits. I wonder how a Chinese or
Ukrainian grandmother is going to operate that system. Expect many
problems
with people trying to enter the US for a second time after not having
properly exited.

I imagine it will be no more complicated than, for example, the requirement
in Japan that a departure tax be collected at the airport _after_ having
already cleared customs and immigration, when there is no longer ready
access to currency exchange.


"The contract will be awarded in May 2004" To Haliburton?

Now, now. I'm sure there are other companies controlled by the current
administration which could get the contract besides Haliburton.


Sjoerd

DALing wrote:

somebody better tell THAT to the folks at the borders where they DRIVE (or
walk like in San Diego) across. There is NO NEED to do ANYTHING to LEAVE
the US to go to Mexico - go thru a turnstile and keep going. The MOST that
happens is that SD police set up "minors checkpoints" usually Fri or Sat PM
to stop the "under 18" set from going south to drink.

Can the San Diego police stop someone under 18 from crossing the border
into Mexico?

"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know how this will work? Up to now, someone checking in in
Omaha for a trip to an exit airport in, say, San Francisco, has
his/her passport checked and visa pulled by the Omaha airline clerk if
he or she remembers.

It's pulled but stapled to your international segment boarding card issued
with your Omaha boarding card. The visa is vinally pulled at the gate of the
international segment.

I've come home several times with US I-94W visas when they haven't removed
it. I travel to the US very frequently so I am rarely over the 90 day
allocation anyway. I believe that you are meant to post it back yourself to
your local US embassy if you still have it. I just keep it safe and hand it
back to them when I reenter.

The last time I tried to hand back a visa waiver was over a land border to
Canada from Buffalo. I went into the US immigration office and after doing
my business I walked out and watched one of the US immigration officials
reversing straight into my rental car! Made for a fun couple of extra hours
filling out forms. I used those two hours to prove that the terms "sense of
humor" and "immigration official" are implicitly exclusive of each other.

Regards, Howard

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:45:59 +0000, Simon Elliott
wrote:

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

Really? Do you have any genuine metrics on the reliability of it,
other than from the marketeers?

Jim

Sjoerd writes
Congress has mandated that an automated entry-exit program be implemented at
the 50 busiest land ports of entry by December 31, 2004, and at all land
ports by December 31, 2005. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued in
November to engage the private sector to help the US-VISIT program develop
the optimum solutions for entry and exit processing. The contract will be
awarded in May 2004."

Interesting. So if you exit (or enter?) the US at a point other than the
top 50 land border crossing points, you won't be subject to the system.

So a self-service system for registering exits. I wonder how a Chinese or
Ukrainian grandmother is going to operate that system. Expect many problems
with people trying to enter the US for a second time after not having
properly exited.

Depends how well designed the system is.

And if the system is badly enough designed, you can fit several people
into the kiosk, one of them gives their fingerprints, the cubicle doors
open...
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

PTRAVEL writes
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.

Is that because the law takes time to adapt to or gain confidence in new
methods? Or is there some doubt over the reliability of retina scans?

I vaguely recall reading that fingerprints are quite easily changed by
surgical procedures. There are certainly ways of fooling less
sophisticated fingerprint readers. FWIW, I've been involved in automated
access control systems for organisations who think that retina scans are
more reliable than fingerprints.

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.

This was something I wasn't aware of until your post to rta a few months
ago. But the new immigration systems aren't primarily designed to work
on US nationals. Is the US likely to have on record the fingerprints of
terrorists who are not US nationals?

Could the exit control system be more useful: a non US national commits
a crime in the US, carelessly leaves his fingerprints on something, and
may be stopped when leaving the US.

Will US citizens also have to be fingerprinted on entry? One obvious way
for a terrorist or other undesirable to enter the US is for them to
obtain a US passport. If the fingerprints of many US citizens are on
record, this would be more hazardous.

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),

Interesting. I've often wondered how that works. Is the jurisdiction of
the US government over its citizens even when outside the US also
explicitly part of the US Constitution?

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?

The UK government IMHO similarly shot themselves in the foot with their
legislation on encrypted emails.

4/ Will the land borders be covered?

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

Hard to see what can be done about that, but does seem to cast some
doubt on the usefulness of the new systems.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:34:58 +1100, Dave Proctor
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 10:30:55 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Long"
wrote:

All 115 US airports that handle international flights and 14 major seaports
are covered by the programme, under which customs officials can instantly
check an immigrant or visitor's criminal background.

This is the bit which got me - how are they supposed to instantly
check databases around the world chronicalling everyone criminal
history? Our states computer systems do not even talk to each other,
so that when an offender goes to court in one state, his criminal
history in another state is not presented to the judge. If they don't
talk to other Australian states, how will they cope with talking to a
foreign government?


Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick. You have two very bad errors in your
seond paragraph. and you want Hillary Clinton to be president. Sheesh.

"chronicalling" is not a word; and your grammar with "Our states
computer" is appalling.
Also, they way the system works here is by way of what is called a CNI
- Central Names Index. Any person having any contact with the cops is
listed on the CNI - I have about 20 different entries on my CNI, all
of them as a person reporting an offence, a victim or as a witness.
Yet it takes our cops a couple of minutes after finding out I am
"known" before they find out that there is nothing "adverse" in my
history. How is this going to look to US authorities though? "Hey guys
this guy is known to police in his home state...."

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Jim Ley writes

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

Really? Do you have any genuine metrics on the reliability of it,
other than from the marketeers?

The usual metrics for identification systems are the false acceptance
rate and false rejection rate.

I have some numbers for iris recognition (probably a better technology
for an immigration system):

FAR FRR
Fingerprint 1/1000000 3/100
Iris recognition 1/1200000 ~0

Retina scanning is supposedly more reliable than iris scanning (though I
can't find any numbers) but can be adversely affected by surgery or
cataracts.
--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Dick Locke wrote:

Does anyone know how this will work? Up to now, someone checking in in
Omaha for a trip to an exit airport in, say, San Francisco, has
his/her passport checked and visa pulled by the Omaha airline clerk if
he or she remembers.

Yep. The US has not had exit control up until this point. Right now, there are
large holes in the system as only airports and ports have the exit control
machines, but land crossing are scheduled to get it over the next year or so.

Sjoerd wrote:

"DALing" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com schreef in bericht
...
The MOST that
happens is that SD police set up "minors checkpoints" usually Fri or Sat
PM
to stop the "under 18" set from going south to drink.

Are you saying that American citizens can't go abroad when they like to?
And
how can the police prove that these people are planning to drink?



It's no big deal. This used to happen years ago when adjacent US states had
different laws for drinking ages, e.g. one state was 21 and the other state
was 19. IIRC there were sometimes patrols on the Illinois - Wisconsin
border to stop IL teenagers from going up to WI to drink (now AFAIK the
uniform US drinking age is 21)....

--
Best
Greg