dutchgirlDH

VIS is for Schengenvisa. Long stay visa is a national authority, there is no EU/Schengen regulation regarding long stay (over 90 days). Most countries however do require biometric data for these visa as well.

VIS will be rolled out world wide by the end of this year, biometric data will be held for 59 months.

GUWonder

Even after the end of this year, it still won't have fingerprint data for everyone with a valid short stay visas issued by Schengen countries.

I find the whole push toward fingerprint captures for short-stay visas, long stay visas/permits and passports to be one that is sort of a Trojan horse -- given it was done supposedly for the security of the issued documents but really has become an excuse to centralize data that can be more readily used by various governmental actors to spy on and control the hitherto free members of the public while also creating a treasure trove for non-state criminal actors and others to exploit.

dutchgirlDH

Agreed, the database will only contain the biometric data of those people who have applied for a visa since the VIS was rolled out in their country of residence. it will take up to 5 years to have a full database.

I see a more positive side to the use of VIS as well - hopefully it will be a step towards e-visa but considering EU decisionmaking processes this will likely take forever. Your concerns about privacy are probably well founded, but not sure how free the members of the public were until this development. Visa applications still had to be lodged and PNR records are being shared. I find the European Parliament misses out on playing a role on this as a privacy watchdog vis a vis the European Commission.

GUWonder

e-visa type arrangements wouldn't have fingerprint capture unless and until the passenger arrives in the e-visa-issuing country/zone. When it comes to most of those who currently are required to get a short-duration Schengen visa prior to travel to the Schengen area, I would be surprised if e-visa would be allowed as it would be in a very different direction than the current trend in officialdom: increase passenger data capture prior to passenger travel.

E-visas could be a step forward for citizens of some non-European countries visiting the Schengen zone, but it would be a step backward for citizens of non-European countries currently eligible to legally enter Schengen without a visa.

PNR surveillance in the EU/Schengen countries is still piecemeal, at least with regard to legal surveillance of passengers' PNR data.

dutchgirlDH

No, the e-visa that I've heard discussed means no more paper visa, and most applications to be done wholly digitally (if you have left your biometric data somewhere in the 59 months previously). As for officialdom - there is quite some discussion amongst member states regarding this, and also between the European Commission and member states. Since the Lisbon Treaty the EC has so much more power re visa and the future (slow steps, little innovation), member states seem to want to push back.


why would currently visa-free nationalities in future be required an e-visa?

fassy

With introduction of e-visas a lot of countries found it attractive to change their mind on visa free entries and then put back all previous visa-free entries to require a visa since it is easy to handle and process e-visas. Basically just a fee to be paid for minimum work, good stream of revenue. Having to issue paper visas eta up the fees, not so for e-visas.

Btw, I love the Indian e-visa. I twas a nightmare for a German citizen living in Sweden to get a Indian visa. Now it is just a matter of a few minutes.

GUWonder

The Indian evisa was a transition to allow more people to visit India without having to first surrender their passport for a physical examination by Indian authorities prior to travel to India; previously, the now evisa-eligible citizens used to be required to get a paper visa prior to travel and surrender their passport for a physical examination by Indian authorities.

The EC is anything but fully on board e-visas for all persons using passports from countries where the ordinary citizen under common conditions is currently required to have a visa to enter the Schengen zone.

For why, look to why the US and Turkey moved to evisa type arrangements for those who were previously allowed to fly in without submitting more than mere passport info as a condition to fly and be admitted into the country. The drive behind the US and Turkish moves to an evisa type arrangement are rather different than the drive behind the Indian move to an visa type arrangement.

WilcoRoger

I think that both bodies are (and should be) concerned about the privacy of their own (EU) citizens, whose data (by definition) never enters the VIS system

GUWonder

While fingerprint capture for VIS generally does not include fingerprint data of EU citizens, you can pretty much bet that most of those officials who are paranoid about foreign visitors are also paranoid about "home grown" types too.

You know what they say about frogs and boiling them? And you know what they say about divide and conquer?

ft556

deleted

GUWonder

From most EU citizens visiting the US with an EU passport, yes. I am not a big fan of such being required, as there is real potential for misuse from which recovery becomes rather difficult.

Even with the fingerprint scans in use by U.S. DHS/CBP, foreign visitors and immigrants are still getting in by making fraudulent use of real passports or other means.

Even with fingerprint scans in use by Schengen users of VIS, people using passports that require visas to ordinarily be admissible into a Schengen country will still be flying into the EU/Schengen area with fraudulent docs and then claiming whatever is required to not be turned out immediately. While this kind of thing could be frustrated in some part by using video feed reviews of arrival passenger flows and/or by doing jetbridge/plane door/gate checks using portable scanners, it will more likely just shift the routes/means of migration rather than stop the migration pattern. We call this squeezing a balloon that won't pop.

It really is a situation of a cat and mouse game, one where mice evolve faster than the cats -- as is to be expected. The consequences of driving the mice to evolve faster breeds some very serious consequences -- like making organized crime a higher revenue, higher margin venture.

WilcoRoger

You are right, our fingerprints do get in the "system" latest when we apply for a passport. With all the data-protection and separation of systems in place I'm very unhappy about that development.

Also as there are hundreds of thousands (if not over a million by now) crossing into Schengen without a trace of control, this is really getting a pretty meaningless exercise. As long as you look reasonable dark and can say "Syria, refugee", you're set with basically any identity you want.

ft556

deleted

GUWonder

Airlines do get fined for bringing inadmissible people into parts of the EU without the proper documentation, and often they have to take such people back on another flight, whether or not it is the next one. But if someone claims asylum/refugee status and they haven't caught them at the plane door, then it takes more work to turn them back and then only to a point considered "safe". Thus the push for the EU/EEA to want to label some SE European countries outside of the EU as being considered "safe".

Zig Zag Wanderer

Interestingly, some countries have bilateral agreements with some Schengen countries. For example, I am a citizen of the UK and Australia. Australia has a bilateral agreement with Italy and several other countries.

This means that I can stay 90 days in other Schengen countries, and then spend an additional 90 days in Italy. Theoretically, I could enter the EU in France, for example, and go to Italy (no record of this), and then leave to the UK for 30 days via France, and then return directly to Italy for 90 days.

Practically, I'd leave a few days before 90 so I can travel legally through France both ways, however.

Having two passports, I could even arrive directly into Italy on my UK passport, stay 90 days, go to the uk for 30 days (required afaik, reports differ), and then return to Italy for 90 days.

Since the laws are not clear, and most officials will not know them, it's best to keep copies for travel. I'll admit my 2nd idea is not really legal, but I also suspect it would never be caught, and most Italian officials wouldn't care given the bilateral agreement anyway.

Worth checking if your country has such an agreement.