Newsstand - U.S. to Begin Fingerprinting Aliens

The Justice Department has chosen Sept. 11 as the starting date for a new program that will require tens of thousands of foreign visitors to be fingerprinted and photographed at the border, U.S. officials announced Monday.

The security program, developed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, will begin at several unnamed ports of entry and will mostly affect those from Muslim and Middle Eastern countries.
...
Under the new program, the fingerprints of many foreign visitors will be matched against a database of known criminals and a database of known terrorists.

The government says the security system will target:

–All nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria.

Good start.

But what about Saudi Arabia?

Can't do Saudia Arabia cause we need the oil but most importantly we need the bases and fly over rights to attack Iraq.

Alex

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by moolman:
Can't do Saudia Arabia cause we need the oil but most importantly we need the bases and fly over rights to attack Iraq.</font> Well they've said we can't use our bases to attack Iraq. So I say let the fingerprinting begin! You can just have a special line at customs. They walk up, get printed and photographed, but then what happens? Do we just take their word that they are going where they are going? I don't think that you can get an instant cross-check in the fingerprint database.

Also, how will this affect customs lines at airports I wonder.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TravelManKen:
Originally posted by moolman:
Can't do Saudia Arabia cause we need the oil but most importantly we need the bases and fly over rights to attack Iraq.</font> Well they've said we can't use our bases to attack Iraq. So I say let the fingerprinting begin! You can just have a special line at customs. They walk up, get printed and photographed, but then what happens? Do we just take their word that they are going where they are going? I don't think that you can get an instant cross-check in the fingerprint database.

Also, how will this affect customs lines at airports I wonder.



Why not require that all visitors must apply for visas prior to entry, instead of merely "middle eastern" or "muslim" countries? There may be non-middle eastern or non-muslim sounding/looking/declaring prospective visitors with bad intentions or extremists from other places as well.

At time of visa application, prospective foreign visitors can submit all the required information including fingerprints and photos (which will be digitized and stored in the database in real-time) and the US INS/Customs folks can merely verify the info quickly upon foreigners entry. Better to shift this work to our consulates overseas than to the INS/Customs over here, for purposes of efficiency.

By the way, there are already ways to evade fingerprint scans. One involves low acidity solutions to "burn" new fingerprints onto the finger or distort current ones. So those who are smart and wicked, will still evade our "security" measures.

I don't understand why we don't also go ahead and administer polygraphs to prospective visitors, in order to screen their "intentions".

There is no such thing as perfect security. Life is all about risk and managing it, but I doubt that fingerprinting aliens is going to secure us, as you all should be aware that extremists groups often recruit individuals with "clean" records or no records to do their dirty work or people who don't fit the profile.

The Palestinian extremist groups have done this well... they must have learned some of this "pick the unlikely" from stories about Israeli Mossad couriers during the Cold War era.

TravelManKen, I have issues with the Saudi government too and the Wahabbi fundamentalism that they export (and exported with our support since we wanted Sunni extremism to battle Shia extremism after the Ayatollah Khomeni's Iranian revolution).

We (i.e., the US government) are hyper-sensitive to our relationship with Saudi Arabia because of not only oil, but because of the Saudi investment portfolios in the US. A lot of Saudi investors (who are by and large pro-American, even if somewhat or very anti-Israeli) are considering pulling out their money from the US financial system due to rumors and concerns about difficulties on visiting their investments in the future. The Bush administration does not want a further weakening of the dollar, a ratcheting up of oil prices, and the subsequent rise of market interest rates.

The children of these same Saudi (and other Arab) investors/elites, who pre-9/11 studied in the US, were strongly pro-American and came to study about America or work at their parent's portfolio companies to learn about our ways so that they could import these back to their country. [Ok, some came here just to party in an open society and to get away from their closed versions.] These same children, the future leaders of that part of the world, now have less faith in the US and our ways for a multitude of reasons. My long-term concern is to make sure that the US remains pre-eminent in every sphere of influence by being both an effective beacon of our traditional political (i.e. Constitutional) values and an effective crusader of those same political values. I have doubts that we are taking all necessary actions to assure our future leadership and/or following the right path to assure this outcome amongst the world (dis)community.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:
At time of visa application, prospective foreign visitors can submit all the required information including fingerprints and photos (which will be digitized and stored in the database in real-time) and the US INS/Customs folks can merely verify the info quickly upon foreigners entry. Better to shift this work to our consulates overseas than to the INS/Customs over here, for purposes of efficiency.
</font>I can forsee that US citizens will be subject to the same kind of requirements visiting countries that the US deems necessary to fingerprint its citizens. Just like the visa "fees" that many countries (including the US) require, its basically retaliatory. I can't imagine most US citizens would be too thrilled at the prospect of submitting to that kind of requirement.

John



------------------
From a kiwi who can fly!

For the record, I am against the idea of selective fingerprinting in light of the fact that this is a pseudo-solution that will fail us miserably and not provide any real security, especially for the next 1 to 5 years. Fail-proof polygraphs, if they could be developed, may be a better solution (albeit unlikely and eventually evaded).

My concern is that tit-for-tat requirements will start a wave of reactionary anti-globalization, isolationist, jingoistic extremism on all sides and increased polarization of not only nation-states, but also of societies. Behave like there is a clash of civilizations and we will create a clash of civilizations, when we are all really part of one civilization with many anti-globalization, isolationist, jingoistic extremists winning the current round against the natural course of increased globalization and inter-dependency. Terrorists and those who over-react to terrorists help terrorists win battles (if not the war) that stop global integration, push the world into protectionism and isolation, escalate the overall level of violence, and strengthen feelings of hate on all sides.

Today, in the grand scheme of things, I am reminded of the historical lessons from the era between World War 1 and World War 2. This is the analgous dangerous era between the Cold War and the Anti-Nation-State Wars.

Holistically speaking, wars between nation-states are on the decline. Wars against nation-states (by non-state or anti-state elements/entities) are on the rise.

Either fingerprint every non-resident who comes into the country and be prepared for all US residents to be fingerprinted when arriving in other countries, or don't fingerprint anybody. Do not apply this policy selectively or it is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Perhaps spur of the moment international travel will be a thing of the past because all countries will insist on pre-arrival screening such as visas. This will upset many US citizens, but every sovreign nation has a right to control its borders and the US has long imposed more restrictive entry conditions on citizens of say Mexico, for example, than they have imposed on the US.

What if the Aliens don't have fingers? (i.e only tentacles, or other weird appendages?)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by skofarrell:
What if the Aliens don't have fingers? (i.e only tentacles, or other weird appendages?)</font>

Oh, those aliens! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Most of the 9.11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. This is a regime that breaks all sorts of human rights covenants, forces women into second class citizenship status, and whose people directly send money in support of all sorts of groups whose sole intent is to kill innocent civilians. It is ruled by a corrupt monarchy with no accountability. Yet its nationals can pass with immunity across US borders! As someone once wrote: Money screams obsenities. And this is one of the most obsene examples!

BTW, Canada ships more oil [not to mention other forms of energy] to the USA than does Saudi Arabia.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by skofarrell:
What if the Aliens don't have fingers? (i.e only tentacles, or other weird appendages?)</font>

Give Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith a call. They'll help you out with those guys. And Will Smith has experience with both friendly and hostile aliens.

When I entered the military, I was fingerprinted, blood-typed, questioned and investigated.

Of course, part of that had to do with granting my security clearance. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

But if it's good enough for US servicemen and servicewomen, then it's good enough for visiting aliens. I agree with the poster who advocated an all-or-nothing approach to fingerprinting visitors to our nation.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:
But if it's good enough for US servicemen and servicewomen, then it's good enough for visiting aliens. I agree with the poster who advocated an all-or-nothing approach to fingerprinting visitors to our nation.</font>
Then its good enough for all US citizens to carry an international ID card with embedded biometric data if they wish to visit any other country.

John

If this is a serious attitude to foreigners, then I for one will re think my desire to travel to the US. Doesn't your government have enough domestic issues to throw money into resolving before faciltating further xenophobia ?!

I don't know GK. Let pretend a bunch of terrorists ran some planes into Big Ben/Parliment and Westminster Abbey. Do you honestly think the British govenrment and people would have reacted differently?

Does anyone think that terrorists would be stupid enough to try to sneak someone through now, given the fact that they'll be printed?

Come on, folks, they are not stupid. If they were, it'd be easy.

I wouldn't worry too much about tit for tat:

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria are already pretty tough on US visitors. US citizens are not supposed to visit Libya, I would imagine that the requirements for an Iraqi visa are quite severe, I KNOW for a fact that Iranian visas for US citizens can be extremely difficult (no but I have friends who have been) at times. Etc, etc.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Shareholder:
BTW, Canada ships more oil [not to mention other forms of energy] to the USA than does Saudi Arabia. </font>
excerpt from the following article:
a new and dangerous element has bubbled up from Sudan's killing fields: oil. Foreign companies like Canada's Talisman Energy have swooped in to tap the newly discovered reserves, paying more than a million dollars a day in royalties. Sudan's government, in turn, has used the money to buy arms, and fund brutal operations against rebel soldiers - and civilians - in the south.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/21/eveningnews/main513084.shtml

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Does anyone think that terrorists would be stupid enough to try to sneak someone through now, given the fact that they'll be printed?

Come on, folks, they are not stupid. If they were, it'd be easy.</font>

If what you are saying is that this will stop any terrorists from entering this country, then that would be a good thing right??? So why do you act like its a dumb idea?

OK, I'll take the bait.

Person X travels to the USA. Person X is fingerprinted. Now what happens?

Is there a file of known terrorist fingerprints that Person X will be compared against before entry is allowed?

The fingerprint of Person X will be kept on file, so that if Person X commits an act of terrorism and escapes, the fingerprint will be on file to catch Person X the next time?

Other?

What will happen next is this:

other countries will also fingerprint visitors. We will all be fingerprinted. Governments love to fingerprint people and control their every move.

While there is nothing wrong or unusual about identifying those entering one's country, the measures under discussion would be better done as part of the visa application, as someone has suggested here.

I find it interesting, almost touching, that several of the contributors are considering these measures from a practical point of view, and discussing, pro and con,their merits in preventing terrorist acts. It ought to be clear to all that these are political measures designed to punish or snub those countries out of favour the the US government, and to satisfy domestic opinion. They are very unlikely to have any effect in preventing unwelcome acts, except by accident.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SoFlyOn:
Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:
But if it's good enough for US servicemen and servicewomen, then it's good enough for visiting aliens. I agree with the poster who advocated an all-or-nothing approach to fingerprinting visitors to our nation.</font>
Then its good enough for all US citizens to carry an international ID card with embedded biometric data if they wish to visit any other country.

Why, exactly? You posit a non-sequitur.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by skofarrell:
I don't know GK. Let pretend a bunch of terrorists ran some planes into Big Ben/Parliment and Westminster Abbey. Do you honestly think the British govenrment and people would have reacted differently?</font>

I think you misunderstand my logic. I am annoyed at assumptions that all arab muslims are considered dangerous. Why not just close your borders entirely ?

The fact is that you cannot deter a terrorist that easily, nor is such a policy morally and socially acceptable.

I have lived in a city targeted by citizens of my own country.. yet it is impractical to prevent all northern irish terrorists from travelling. The answer is better use of intelligence information, not restrictions on freedom to travel.

As for your comment critcising me for apparently not caring about Sept 11. Please do not jump to conclusions, those of you on FT who know me will also know that I used to work for a certain firm based in Lower Manhattan .. but no apology expected.

Let us say there are 1.5 million muslims in America. Let us say there are 1000 terrorists (or their active aides) in the US already -- which mind you is a big exaggeration since there are far less of these kind of people in the US, even by the worst case US government estimates.

Then 1000/1500000 = 1/1500 = .07% of muslims are dangerous. Should we be proud that the bigots can paint a whole "group" with a black brush for the actions of less than one-tenth of a percent (0.1%) of its group" "members"?

Why can't the INS adopt a link to airlines, like Oz does.... AND make you generate an ETA (electronic travel authority) if you are a traveller from a Visa Waiver country OR to re-register your entry if you have a US embassy issued visa (single or multi entry)

This would give INS heads up on those entering, better than the hodge podge system of airlines giving useless names and no details for incoming pax's...

I'm sure the airlines would love to charge for issuing an ETA.

Also how bloody hard is it to take a fingerprint as a form of confirming ID... You don't need ink with an electronic fingerprint reader, and it only takes two seconds.

But alas, that would involve Border Patrol/INS workers to actually USE the computer system in front of them... Half the time I come in they do nothing but ask the standard questions... My details are never scanned or entered.

Also.... Let's not forget the problems facing this country before... Domestic terrorism.

Tell me how you differentiate:

- Someone born in the US, US citizen, white, commits an act of terrorism

- Someone born in the US, US Citizen, of middle eastern descent, commits an act of terrorism

Tell me how each incident is different. Race? Means nothing - each is just as guilty. YET; we justify how to treat the latter case outside the standard justice system.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
Also.... Let's not forget the problems facing this country before... Domestic terrorism.

Tell me how you differentiate:

- Someone born in the US, US citizen, white, commits an act of terrorism

- Someone born in the US, US Citizen, of middle eastern descent, commits an act of terrorism

Tell me how each incident is different. Race? Means nothing - each is just as guilty. YET; we justify how to treat the latter case outside the standard justice system.</font>

While I agree, I think we have to be careful not to paint the dilemma in such simple terms. Naturally, people are not robots, about which you can say, "everything else about the two criminals is equal except the nationality." Most of us are aware of that.

The reality is that 9/11 was committed by certain individuals about whom we know certain facts, facts which add up to a picture more complex than that they were simply men, or muslims. Some facts may be related to the propensity to commit the crime, some facts may have nothing to do with it.

Although they claimed to have done it in part for Islam, we should know well that Islam has nothing to do with what they have done. Like many muslims and others have commented, they hijacked Islam itself. Islam does not say, go hijack planes and kill people for the sake of your religion.

Having said that, other factors, such as having gone through the al-Qaida training camps, being associated with bin Laden's terrorist organization, even statements they made to people prior to 9/11 that they were going to do something big and hurt America - these facts are clearly related to the propensity to commit the crimes.

How does the theory that part of being a terrorist is being from the middle east explain John Walker Lindh or Jose Padilla, or for that matter, Puerto Rican separatists? How does the theory that only muslims are terrorists explain the Symbionese Liberation Army (okay, that was a long time ago), or Timothy McVeigh or the Sri Lanka separatist movement? How can you explain the IRA with that theory? Or that sect in Japan?

I don't quite know how I feel about fingerprinting aliens. On the one hand, I cherish the notion of privacy for myself and for others, even non-Americans. I know I detest giving my fingerprint when paying with a check at the store, and the notion of letting someone scan my iris just makes me want to puke. On the other hand, we live in extraordinary times, with a lot of bad things happening. Must we take extraordinary measures to secure society? If so, are these the RIGHT measures? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.

P.S. Let me just say one thing about biometrics: I am VERY skeptical about claims made for biometrics and the need for them. I happen to believe there are STRONG vested interests lobbying congress, because they see fat government contracts waiting for them at the end of the rainbow. I would really, really HATE to have myself poked, prodded and measured, without getting anything valuable in return, and please don't tell me I would be safer surrendering my bodily measurements to a government agency or HMO - how ridiculous can you be...

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 08-20-2002).]

Good points, Anonplz.

Governments have paranoid people who see enemies everywhere. That is their job.

But in a "free" society we want privacy. That is at odds with the paranoid people.

So the balance tilts here and there, but generally (like taxes) it gets worse steadily, with occasional bouts of getting less worse.

How did we do it in the "old" days when you didn't show your ID when you traveled? What is different now?

And let me ask you this: if they are checking my bags, my person and my stuff, why do they need to know who I am?

Why should I have to be fingerprinted or show ID at all? They have checked my stuff and they know I have not weapons.

The answer is that the "enemies everywhere" people want to keep tabs on you, on me, and on everybody. They start with the aliens but do you think it stops there? Ha.

Do you see those cameras around? Soon they will be keeping tabs on you the moment you arrive and on and on. Tracking using computerized recognition software. Updating databases on your whereabouts.

There will be some hue and cry about this, but it is already starting to happen.

Today it's fingerprinting aliens. Tomorrow it's fingerprinting everyone. Tracking everyone.

The tragedy is that this way, the USA causes people to become more resentful, more polarized, less free. The government's behavior of seeing enemies everywhere creates those very enemies it anticipates.

I am sure that there is an upside here somewhere. Perhaps it will get so bad the whole thing will collapse. Perhaps we are entering a new era of freedom and liberty, where nobody dares violate anyone's privacy and weapons are tracked but not people.

But we need to get through this dark period first.

Of course, this "dark period" will end only when the terrorists are defeated. But that will NEVER happen. There are always more people willing to become terrorists.

The government has found a way to enhance its power and control over our lives indefinitely. And some people accept it because they "want to be safe." Not good news.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
The government has found a way to enhance its power and control over our lives indefinitely. And some people accept it because they "want to be safe." Not good news.</font>

You are so right on this one - I can't stand hearing, "wellllll, if you have nothing to hide, it should be OK with you!" ick! Makes me want to spit - some people just don't GET IT and never will.

No, it's not okay with me. The question of whether or not I have anything to hide should never, ever enter the debate, and I don't care what you read in the paper this morning or what you saw on Jerry Springer last night.

I have thought a lot about this loss of privacy issue, and the conclusion I've reached is that there is no escaping it except to get involved in the democratic process and speak up. I have, for the first time in my life, contacted my representatives about important issues, and I have indeed contacted them about the issue of biometrics. AND I always make alternative suggestions, instead of simply criticizing.

There - got that off my chest...

One of the local universities here (close to our companies US office) had a guest speaker for commencement. The woman spoke about how valuable our freedom is, about civil liberties and that what has happened post 9/11 shouldn't be an excuse for taking civil liberties away.

Sad to say, this graduating class, decided her speech was out of line and heckled her off..

Sad, really sad, when the next generation of leaders has so little interest in this and is being brainwashed by dumb tv, dumb magazines, etc on why we should be proud to loose our rights. Question it and your considered unpatriotic. Truly sad.

My 2 cents...


[This message has been edited by NickP 1K (edited 08-21-2002).]

Bruce Springsteen has been saying the same thing at his concerts (which I heard first-hand on August 10 in DC) and on TV (August 20). His audiences cheer.

Bruce (the other one)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Bruce Springsteen has been saying the same thing at his concerts (which I heard first-hand on August 10 in DC) and on TV (August 20). His audiences cheer.

Bruce (the other one)</font>

The moment I found out what happened on 9/11 (and after I called my family, friends and key colleagues who would know the firm's/employee status in Manhattan), I sent an email, after deplaning, to the effect saying that "Today, more people than I wish to imagine will be amongst the lost in this painful tragedy; tomorrow, I fear, freedom and America's traditional political values and spirit will be another casualty."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Of course, this "dark period" will end only when the terrorists are defeated. But that will NEVER happen. There are always more people willing to become terrorists.

The government has found a way to enhance its power and control over our lives indefinitely. And some people accept it because they "want to be safe." Not good news.

Bruce</font>

Please don't blame the government for the decisions of the terrorists, as though "the government" has been lying in wait for an opportunistic moment to intrude further into people's lives.

The government is not a monolith, and is made up of people who have the same privacy concerns that you do. If the government has any sort of "collective unconscious" of it's own, it is towards self preservation. And right now, so close to the terrorist attacks, the primary motivation of the government is to make the majority of the population feel safe. That has intruded on the privacy rights we prefer, in limited ways and places.

America has a strong history of protecting privacy. And while technology and the passage of time will undoubtedly erode that to a certain extent, in most ways you can opt out of it, by being willing to give up the privilege (not rights) that this surrender of privacy affords.

Brian,

You and I should go on Crossfire!

You are absolutely right that the government is not a monolith. This comes as no surprise to me, as I was a rather high-ranking Federal employee for almost a decade. Federal employees do have most of the same concerns as other people, and certainly no one would ever admit to having a power-grabbing agenda.

However, the Founding Fathers -- who maybe knew a thing or two about human nature -- were very, very concerned about the tendency of government to inexorably take more and more power from the people. It's not that anybody is evil; it's just in the nature of governments to do that. Accordingly, the Constitution carefully delineates the powers of the government, and the Bill of Rights reinforces that delineation by explicitly stating the rights of the people. The Founding Fathers apparently believed that the people need to be "protected" in a sense from the government and acted accordingly. They were right.

You have stated repeatedly that we can avoid many of the government's intrusions on our rights by choosing not to enter airports or to fly. Technically, you are entirely correct. But I would prefer to continue engaging in those aspects of modern life WHILE retaining as many of my rights as I possibly can retain.

I fully support the government's efforts -- and the people's efforts, too, for that matter -- to keep terrorists out of our country and certainly off of our airplanes. But that can be done much more sensibly than it's being done now. I do not believe -- and I hope that you don't, either -- that the government has carte blanche to take any steps that it unilaterially believes are appropriate to produce one iota of additional "safety." We need to balance safety against freedom and even convenience.

The safest world would be one where all of us are locked in our homes all day. But neither of us would want to live in such a world.

Bruce

Well, as to whether privacy is protected across the board in this country, see this:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a6.html#Q113

"Q113. 'What is the right to privacy and where can I find it in the Constitution?'

"A. The right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution, at least not in so many words. The right to privacy would best be seen in the 9th Amendment, which basically says that just because a right is not in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. The justices of the Supreme Court, in several cases over the past half century, have found that a right to privacy does exist in the Constitution, to a degree. The cases that started the process of the 'finding' of this new right began with cases like Loving v Virginia, where it was ruled that the state cannot prevent mixed-race marriages; and like Griswold v Connecticut, where it was ruled that a state cannot prevent a married couple from buying and using condoms. The first mention of a right to privacy was in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v US in 1928, in which Justice Brandeis argued that the Framers had created a framework for the greatest right of all: 'the right to be left alone.'

"The Supreme Court has found that this right to privacy appears in the Constitution in several pre-existing forms. For example, the police are not allowed to search your home or papers without a warrant, which is a direct protection of privacy. The majority of the justices found a right to privacy in some form, a right which could be expanded. Some justices argued that since there is no right to privacy directly enumerated in the Constitution, such a right does not exist. With all due respect, however, this is exactly the sort of argument that the 9th was designed to counter. The right is far from absolute, and many invasions of privacy, such as drug tests and the census, have been upheld by the Supreme Court."

So it's a mixed bag, a constantly evolving process of trying to determine what the founders of the US would have wanted, tempered with whatever societal mores are currently held to be true and valuable.

People like Ann Landers and Oprah and Jerry Springer are opinion-makers, "helping" an uninformed public decide what type of society they want, and encouraging it to exert pressure on lawmakers and others. There always were people like that, and always will be.

If you feel strongly enough about something, you should try to exert your own pressure, win friends and influence people, so you can see justice prevail.

Sorry, don't mean to get high-brow on anyone, but I just think a well-informed FT board can be better prepared to engage in serious debate with scheisters and self-dealing types like the biometric lobbying group. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

well I see nothing wrong in the US fingerprinting visitors, as long as they do not mind the same happening to its own citizens and then spout human rights abuses. After all the forensic lab will then be able to identify the bits of skin on the wall after the martyr presses the bibi button on his belt. Anyone who believes any self respecting terrorist group does not have the means and resources to smuggle people into a country other than on a commecial flight, beyond those who are already there in covert cells, must be naive. Well the USA has now stationed its own people in major ports like Hong kong to prevent smuggling of refugees or nuclear material into the USA, it has framed laws in the light of recent US white collar crime to investigate the accounts of British , HK, Singapore or other foreign country based subsidiaries of US companies. So in the meantime Washington DC has a murder rate comparable with Colombia and from a recent TV program the former Chief of the LAPD who tried to introduce more civil rights for the public was fired after the serious crime rate surged 30%. No doubt the gangs of LA shown in the program had been fingerprinted but that did not stop the crime.
So how does fingerprinting prevent the terrorists doing the same thing with an aircraft hijacked overseas and then flown into USA ?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Marco Polo:
well I see nothing wrong in the US fingerprinting visitors, as long as they do not mind the same happening to its own citizens and then spout human rights abuses. After all the forensic lab will then be able to identify the bits of skin on the wall after the martyr presses the bibi button on his belt. Anyone who believes any self respecting terrorist group does not have the means and resources to smuggle people into a country other than on a commecial flight, beyond those who are already there in covert cells, must be naive. Well the USA has now stationed its own people in major ports like Hong kong to prevent smuggling of refugees or nuclear material into the USA, it has framed laws in the light of recent US white collar crime to investigate the accounts of British , HK, Singapore or other foreign country based subsidiaries of US companies. So in the meantime Washington DC has a murder rate comparable with Colombia and from a recent TV program the former Chief of the LAPD who tried to introduce more civil rights for the public was fired after the serious crime rate surged 30%. No doubt the gangs of LA shown in the program had been fingerprinted but that did not stop the crime.
So how does fingerprinting prevent the terrorists doing the same thing with an aircraft hijacked overseas and then flown into USA ? </font>

The countries from whom visitors to America will need to submit fingerprints are countries Americans visit in VERY small numbers.

We can't make our country terrorist-proof, but why make smuggling and invasion easy? Strict procedures will continue to be proposed and adopted as a means of securing our country from maniacs.

Well, I think that the point was that these measures don't work. It is not better to do something ineffective than to do nothing at all. It tends to bring the system into disrepute.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Rover:
Well, I think that the point was that these measures don't work. It is not better to do something ineffective than to do nothing at all. It tends to bring the system into disrepute.</font>

But ineffective at what? Ineffective at identifying criminals from fingerprints left at the scene of a crime after it has been committed? If it were, career criminals wouldn't bother wearing gloves. Years of intelligence-gathering activities supports the value of fingerprinting. I think that this is INDEED effective, or else someone had better tell the guy who writes CSI.

Knowing what we know about terrorism in general and the origin country from which the 9/11 hijackers and al-Qaida members come, fingerprinting visitors from the chosen countries is a good idea, and may come in useful later. Extending this idea to, say, England, would be not such a good idea.

Well, certainly fingerprinting the 9/11 hijackers on entry to the U.S. would have done no good at all. It would neither have prevented the attacks nor allowed identification of the attackers after the fact. So, why bother?

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Well, certainly fingerprinting the 9/11 hijackers on entry to the U.S. would have done no good at all. It would neither have prevented the attacks nor allowed identification of the attackers after the fact. So, why bother?

Bruce</font>

Several of the hijackers were, indeed, on watch lists, and had our security been better tuned up (as it is now), they would have been denied entry. And we can speculate all day on what might have happened when they were interrogated.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Well, certainly fingerprinting the 9/11 hijackers on entry to the U.S. would have done no good at all. It would neither have prevented the attacks nor allowed identification of the attackers after the fact. So, why bother?

Bruce</font>

In this one case, it would not have allowed identification of the hijackers, but only because their bodies were incinerated. Had someone stopped the hijacking as it was occurring, and crashed the plane into the river, no fire, bodies could be retrieved, and we'd have a positive ID.

The watch lists are useless.... How easy is to get fake documentation.... Also the continual delays on outbound international flights due to "security issues" are due to a person close to matching a watch list name. I'VE yet to see the person they pulled aside, remotely resemble anybody other than a normal person who happens to have a middle eastern name. In one case this happened on a flight from the US to Europe. I KNEW the pax who was pulled (under heavy police protection), I was shocked, but kept quiet.

Talked to him a week later, he was interrogated, background checked and released as "oh, you're not the person we are looking for". No apology, the airline said it wasn't their issue to rebook the pax, and he got screwed out of his ticket.

Is this what we want, over-zealous security?

I don't blame the security agencies for stopping him if they thought his surname matched a list but why:

1) didn't they realize and have him flagged before the flight boarded (we all had to de-board)

2) if #1 was achieved, have TSA/FBI, etc screen the pax and interrogate to allow the pax to make his flight. Come on the false flag rate is 99.99999% so we screw those with an ethnic name.?

3) CIA and other agencies come up with something better than a random mis-spelled named

So... we come back to finger-printing, but alas that only helps if we have a fingerprint on file of who we are looking for.

Also, do take into account, who said a terrorist even if from an extermist islamic group has to be olive/brown skinned, brown eyes, dark hair. Have any of you been around the middle east at all???

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Just Passing Thru:But if it's good enough for US servicemen and servicewomen, then it's good enough for visiting aliens. I agree with the poster who advocated an all-or-nothing approach to fingerprinting visitors to our nation.</font>

And how do you think this would affect US based airlines such as UAL and AA for instance?

When I travel on a 1st World passport (or any other for that matter) from the South Pacific to Europe then in Asia or Middle East or South Africa I don't need to "enter" a country to transit. In the US when flying UA or AA I need to "enter" the country to continue my journey. If you guys want me fingerprinted just for using US based airlines then I'll take my chances with other FF programmes and forget about the fact that North America even exists.

Get real and find your enemies without digging the graves for your own airline and tourist industry to say the least!

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
The watch lists are useless.... How easy is to get fake documentation.... </font>

Yes, but as you may not recall, the hijackers didn't get fake identification. It was established afterwards that they used their real names to enter, the same names on watch lists that were ineffective because they weren't used effectively prior to 9/11.

I am not in favor of fingerprinting every nonresident alien entering the United States... however, I believe we have the right to do so in circumstances where suspicion exists, with oversight to minimize overzealous use by agents.

From CNN today - tends to suggest they start fingerprinting at home before extending it overseas - what a joke !
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Federal agents arrested 81 people who used phony identification to get jobs with high level security clearances at Southern California airports, officials said Friday.

The raid Thursday uncovered immigration violations and document fraud but no connections to terrorist groups, authorities said. The action was part of a national sweep started last fall known as "Operation Tarmac."

Most of the alleged violators were Hispanic immigrants employed as baggage handlers, janitors and maintenance workers. They were among some 40,000 Southern California airport employees investigated because of their access to restricted areas.

U.S. Attorney Debra W. Yang said the safety of the traveling public "required us to examine those with access to the most secure portions of the airports."

But immigrant rights groups and unions said the government should make it easier for illegal workers to get proper papers instead of arresting them.

"It's a disgrace," said Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union. "President Bush is punishing hard-working immigrants for the crimes committed last September by terrorists."

More than 150 protesters from labor unions representing immigrant workers marched outside the federal courthouse Friday.

Nationwide, hundreds of workers with access to high-security areas of airports have been arrested in sweeps since September 11.

Most involved charges of using phony Social Security numbers, lying about past criminal convictions or being in the United States illegally.

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Anonplz wants to make exceptions in fingerprinting foreigners, for people from England, for instance. Didn't the aspiring shoe-bomber have a British passport? Of course the terrorist groups will start sending new, unknown people over for any mischief, if we start fingerprinting Middle-Easterners (except for Saudis, of course), or they'll think up some other way to get at us. The fingerprinting idea is useless.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Track:
Anonplz wants to make exceptions in fingerprinting foreigners, for people from England, for instance. Didn't the aspiring shoe-bomber have a British passport? Of course the terrorist groups will start sending new, unknown people over for any mischief, if we start fingerprinting Middle-Easterners (except for Saudis, of course), or they'll think up some other way to get at us. The fingerprinting idea is useless.</font>

Fingerprinting can offer great value, and I stand by my position. An exception to a rule only strengthens the case that the rule applies most of the time.

Of course the possibility exists that they will find other ways, that just means we have to be vigilant.

Having said that, Track, it's not my idea, but I support it if they think it's doable.

The bureaucracies propose all sorts of things they never end up following through on, for one reason or another - lack of money, manpower, political will - will they actually follow through on fingerprinting? I don't know, but if so, I imagine it will only be for a short time.

anonplz,

You confuse me when you say, "An exception to a rule only strengthens the case that the rule applies most of the time." What does that mean? Would more exceptions strengthen the rule even more? Would 100% exceptions make the rule infinitely powerful? Seriously, what did you mean?

Also, I don't mean to pick on you, but aren't you ceding quite a bit of independence of thought when you say, "It's not my idea, but I support it if they think it's doable." Who is "they"? The government? Why do you have such confidence in their judgment? Having spent some time in Brooklyn myself, I thought that most people there were more skeptical than you seem to be!

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
anonplz,

You confuse me when you say, "An exception to a rule only strengthens the case that the rule applies most of the time." What does that mean? Would more exceptions strengthen the rule even more? Would 100% exceptions make the rule infinitely powerful? Seriously, what did you mean?

Also, I don't mean to pick on you, but aren't you ceding quite a bit of independence of thought when you say, "It's not my idea, but I support it if they think it's doable." Who is "they"? The government? Why do you have such confidence in their judgment? Having spent some time in Brooklyn myself, I thought that most people there were more skeptical than you seem to be!

Bruce

</font>

NORMALLY, I am at my FT best at 2:30 a.m. on
Sunday mornings right before I go to bed, so I apologize for failing to meet my typically tight editorial standards.... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

No, to address your question, I guess what I meant to say was rather different than what I said: that the exception to a rule does not invalidate the rule. That's like saying it never rains in Southern California, and the one day you are there, it rains. Does that mean it's a bad "rule"? No, you could still operate on that rule and have a well-run life.

So, in practice, what I was getting at was the fact that while Richard Reid may have been traveling on a British passport, it would be nonsensical to then react to the fact that a mischief-maker was traveling on a non-"watch list" country passport by dropping the practice of fingerprinting visitors from Libya. R. Reid is an exception to the unspoken rule that all terrorists are traveling to the US from the watch list countries on passports from those countries. (Am I making sense yet?)

Now, as to who are "they," they are bureaucrats, people in the administration who are proposing these various procedures. Are all their suggestions good suggestions? No, of course not. As a matter of fact, while I support the idea of fingerprinting aliens from select countries IF it will make the world safer, I am VERY opposed to using biometric measurements in issuing American passports and will speak out against it unless someone can convince me otherwise. Furthermore, when the threat of terrorism recedes, we can stop fingerprinting aliens.

So, no, I do not march in lock-step to people running the political show. As some of you have probably figured out, I can be quite contentious, have a mind of my own and I speak without sugarcoating the truth. I have not been, as one person put it, "properly indoctrinated."

For the record, I am originally from Chicagoland (I'm curious, how are we different from everyone else?), and have lived in Brooklyn - :lol: ha, ha, ha - only relatively briefly for rather complicated personal reasons. I ask only that you give me credit for the fact that I don't like Brooklyn anymore than anyone else does, and I plan to move on!

[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 08-25-2002).]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't make sense all the time, either. (Brian and mdtony will attest to that!)

Actually, I like Brooklyn. A good friend in college lived in Sheepshead Bay, and I spent lots of time there. More recently, I had a good friend in Park Slope.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Actually, I like Brooklyn. A good friend in college lived in Sheepshead Bay, and I spent lots of time there. More recently, I had a good friend in Park Slope.</font>

I know we're getting off-topic, but it's amazing how really ENORMOUS and really diverse Brooklyn is, geographically and in terms of how long it takes to get from one place in Brooklyn to another when, looking at a map, it doesn't look like it SHOULD take that long. For better or worse, everything - transit routes, subways, what have you - revolves around Manhattan (and mind you, I really DO love Manhattan), so I guess Brooklyn is one of the spokes to Manhattan's hub. When the phrase was coined, "you can't get there from here," it was said to someone in Brooklyn looking to get somewhere else in Brooklyn! Bay Ridge is truly beautiful, and parts of Brooklyn Heights are really lovely, but the "locals" generally are just WAY too rough and tumble for me.

Having said all that, anyone who is SOMEONE spends their work/free time in "the City" and only lives in the Boroughs, we all know that...

anonplz: &gt;&gt;Fingerprinting can offer great value, and I stand by my position. An exception to a rule only strengthens the case that the rule applies most of the time.&lt;&lt;

Bingo! All it takes is one non terrorist looking person to sneak through and not me traceable later.

Are we so stupid as to think ALL terrorists have

- brown eyes
- dark hair
- olive/brown skin
- Saudi or other Middle Eastern passports

Profiling based off color of skin or ethnicity is a sure **** good way to MISS a real culprit.

Face the facts people times have changed, if you think you KNOW who would do harm to the US or other "allied" countries - you must be a tarot card reader.... Cuz, nothing but consistency in dealing with those entering and leaving the country (e.g. fingerprints and REAL landing and departure cards FOR ALL)... Leave the profiling to those who do hit trends such as one way tickets paid for with cash, intelligence backed info, etc

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
All it takes is one non terrorist looking person to sneak through and not me traceable later...</font>

No, actually, as to 9/11, it took 12 or more individuals to pull that off, not a single terrorist, so no, it would take more than a single terrorist sneaking through one time only. Also, if you look at just about every major terrorist incident of the last twenty years or so (excluding Israel), it took teams of terrorists to execute their plans, not just individuals working in isolation. Even if some extremely capable terrorist did sneak through and committed a crime (God forbid), how does that say anything about the efficacy of fingerprinting visiting aliens? Like I posted to Bruce, the fact that it may rain today in Southern California does not invalidate the principle that it hardly ever rains in Southern California. (or something like that...)

I'm amazed Spider's point wasn't made earlier. There are plenty of people who have an option to travel to or via the USA and would simply go elsewhere if they had to get a visa, let alone one involving quite some expense and time, one assumes, for getting the fingerprinting done. (In my own case, some countries in Europe require visas for Australians and I have not bothered visiting those countries.)

If visas and fingerprinting were required across the board, it would cost travellers (and hence the US-based airlines) a fortune. What would it achieve? GUWonder's suggestion of applying in advance would enable all these fingerprints to be forged anyhow, unless every single one were checked on entry to the USA ... in which case, they might as well just do the fingerprinting on entry as the original article suggested.

In either case, it would cost the US government a fortune in extra staff and/or equipment to do the extra processing.


[This message has been edited by Kremmen (edited 08-25-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
America has a strong history of protecting privacy.</font>

There's a "not" missing from that sentence.

The USA's record on protecting privacy is atrocious. Personal information is stored and copied willy-nilly in America. Lists of names, addresses and other private data are bought and sold with no real possibility of the individual working out who is doing it.

All manner of US companies ask for social security numbers and store them in their computers so that they can happily share private data with other companies. (In the case of the closest equivalent government identification number in Australia, the tax file number, it is illegal for any unauthorised organisation to even ask for it, let alone store it in their database.)

Even in just the arena of air travel, we've seen discussions here on FT of personal data being kept in databases of US-based airlines with no access or review possible by those who the data is about. This is illegal in countries with decent privacy legislation.

Two things:

1) Most airlines keep records on their PAX recording comments and the like. While there may be a process in the EU for finding out what they say, I am curious to know if anyone has ever challenged BA lets say to see their "file".

2) Giving your SS# to anyone in the US except certain authorized government agencies is NOT a legal requirement. 000-00-0000 is an appropriate solution as in many cases where data input idiots say it is required it is because they cannot file the form without the field filled in. Now, a bank or other institution may then not give you credit or whatever due to it missing, however believe it or not, they cannot legally refuse you credit etc. solely based on a lack of SS# (although they often do it).

Kremmen,

I had mentioned before that fingerprint-based measures can easily be evaded by low-level acid burns applied to the fingertips that cause scarring to alter fingerprint patterns substantially enough to make pattern identification useless.

Also, fingerprint lifting and a little creative laser application will eventually allow people to change such "biometrics" or forge or fake them.

If we are going to use fingerprints, we may as well begin the process before individuals are on our territory, wherever feasible, and distribute the workload. And the system envisioned would have a database of names matched with digitized photos and digitized fingerprints and the fingerprint would be the "record locator" of sorts. Of course such a database would not help us with suicidal maniacs, since there is no such thing as a repeat suicide bomber.

I think we should just accept the fact that life involves risk. A meaningful life always has and always will have a measure of risk to some degree.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 08-25-2002).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spider:
And how do you think this would affect US based airlines such as UAL and AA for instance?</font>

Ah. So US policy should be made with an eye toward how airlines are potentially affected by it? Really, Spider, before injuring yourself by jumping to conclusions, you should ask people about things like this rather than presuming you know their mindset. Miss Cleo you're not.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spider:
When I travel on a 1st World passport (or any other for that matter) from the South Pacific to Europe then in Asia or Middle East or South Africa I don't need to "enter" a country to transit. In the US when flying UA or AA I need to "enter" the country to continue my journey.</font>

I don't have a problem with exempting (from this requirement) individuals who are simply transiting the country. But of course, since you didn't bother to ask, you wouldn't know that, would you? I also suppose you missed my "all-or-nothing" comment above. Do you require any clarification on what the "nothing" means, or would you prefer to leap to a conclusion on that, too?


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spider:
If you guys want me fingerprinted just for using US based airlines then I'll take my chances with other FF programmes and forget about the fact that North America even exists. Get real and find your enemies without digging the graves for your own airline and tourist industry to say the least!</font>

Do have some decaf, won't you?