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

How exactly does fingerprinting help? Only if you have two fingerprints
to
_compare_.

What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.


They were not going to the USA, or even entering Spain. They lived there.
Like the 911 culprits. And they had full visas.
jay
Sat Apr 03, 2004





One specimen (the person entering the country), one certified by
an authority that it belongs to that individual. If they match - OK, if
they don't match - fake! But if they only have the one, the authorities
can't tell anything from it. "Hello, here's my fake passports, hello,
here's my thumb". What's the point?

Passports,
DLs, and every other form of ID have been no problem to duplicate for
terrorists.

How about procedures which can identify counterfeit passports? Methods
exist, it would make sense, and there wouldn't be protests against
putting
them in place, as it wouldn't involve storing information about innocent
individuals in government databases.

Regards

"Magda" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:29:44 +0200, in rec.travel.europe, AJC
arranged some
electrons, so they looked like this :


... Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
... former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
... any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.

I have had my 10 fingerprints taken when I got my first identity card at
18. That card had
a big print (including sides) of my right thumb right under my picture. I
didn't feel I
was being treated as a criminal at all. I wasn't intending to get in
trouble anyway, so I
was glad that if an identity mistake happened, the police already had my
fingerprints and
could prove my innocence.

In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having committed a
crime.
That is why we object.

Peter Kemp wrote:
I'm just glad I get an exemption from the process thanks to a nice
shiny government visa, because otherwise I would *ot* come to the US

I thought it was currently the opposite: all those entering on a visa are fingerprinted.
In october, it will be all travellers whether on a real visa, or a 90 day visa waiver.

Chad Irby wrote:

AJC wrote:

Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.

Check up on Brazil, then. They were complaining about fingerprinting
people from Brazil coming into the US, but neglected to note that they
already fingerprint and photograph *all* of their own citizens.

Does that somehow make it better? Note he said a "big brother" regime.

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

Marie Lewis wrote:


In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having committed a
crime.
That is why we object.


In this country they are also used as a means of identification.
Different country, different processes. Isn't the UK a leader in street
camera survelience?

In article , Oelewapper
wrote:

"Go Fig" wrote in message
...

What about after some incident, you must agree that fingerprints can be
valuable at this point. Clearly they were used in Madrid, as they used
discovered prints at that house to ID conspirators.

Ex post : yes, maybe - but only when justified, and within a decent judicial
framework
Ex ante: NEVER !!! Not where I wanna live anyway...

How do you feel about the gov mandating you to tell them where you live
?

jay
Sat Apr 03, 2004




-----
Air America: The greatest CIA-operation ever !!!

Alan Pollock wrote:
Seriously, driver's licenses are used as ID in the US.

You know, I am amazed at the transformation of the USA. In the past, the mere
mention of a national identity card would make the republicans rabid,
professing that such a card would infringe on the rights of freedom and
liberty (etc etc).

It is interesting that those very same people today are calling anyone who is
against the current regime's measures "unpatriotic" even those measures
actually do infronge on many of the basic principles of the USA (right to fair
trial, innocent until proven guilty etc).

While a citizen has some power over his government in case of abuses, a
visitor does not. So if the US regime misuses its own citizens information,
you can eventually boot them out (or even impeach them). But for travellers,
they have no such right.

This is especially true when a regime does not have modern data privacy laws
and can essentially do as it wishes with the personal data it collects.

Lets turn the tables around: lets say that the Taliban had required all
visitors to be fingerprinted and photographed when they visited Afghanistan.
Then, they would choose an american indentity at random and proceed to murder
some prominent person in the USA, making sure that they leave some innocent
person's fingerprints as well as wearing a mask making the real guilty person
look like the innocent.


That is why, if you are going to leave personal information with a government,
you must have trust that the government will not misuse that information. The
current USA regime has broken that trust because it has misused the information.

Look at the Jetblue personal information which had been meant to stay within
one department for study, but not only spread to other departments, but was
also handed over to some consulting firm that not only analysed the data but
also displayed privated information in their examples during a presentation at
a conference.

James Robinson wrote:
How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

That is in fact quite different. Registration of firearm is no different from
registration of a car or aircraft. Since since all three are dangerous and
kill (with the firearm designed for the sole purpose fo killing and giving no
transportation or other benefit), it is only normal that a government would
want to ensure that you are qualified to operate such a device by requiring registration.

But if a government captures your own body's information (fingerprints, DNA,
eye retina scan etc), then they "own" part of your body/identity.

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

AJC wrote:

Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.

Check up on Brazil, then. They were complaining about fingerprinting
people from Brazil coming into the US, but neglected to note that they
already fingerprint and photograph *all* of their own citizens.

Does that somehow make it better? Note he said a "big brother" regime.

Brazil is a democracy, you should look up your terms.

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

I don't approve of it.

Note that over the last couple of years, firearms laws have been
*relaxing* across most of the US, with one of the sillier ones going
away this September (the Assault Weapons Ban).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

James Robinson wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

AJC wrote:


Having finger-prints taken for a driving licence? Maybe in Cuba, the
former DDR, or some other 'big brother' regime, but certainly not in
any free country. Finger-printing is for criminals.

Check up on Brazil, then. They were complaining about fingerprinting
people from Brazil coming into the US, but neglected to note that they
already fingerprint and photograph *all* of their own citizens.


Does that somehow make it better? Note he said a "big brother" regime.

How do you feel about the registration of firearm?

i don't think the framers of the US constitution had a desire for the
government to know which citizens had firearms and which didn't.