I guess by treating all visitors to the US as criminals, we'll deter as many people as possible from coming here, and thus there will be fewer people to search for.

I don't see why we don't just ban foreign visitors entirely. Who needs them?

Well first, everyone knew those guys had been caught for quite some time. Second, the only reason they were held in the secret CIA prisons in the first place was that they were caught abroad. There's no way that the government could get away with those kinds of secret arrests and deportations on US soil. (At least not yet.)

So, in the UK where they photograph your coming in (mug shot) and keep you on CCTV as much as possible (if only East Germany could have implemented that!) I guess they'd be much worse off than we poor serfs under the thumb of Comrade Chertoff?

I have to give my thumbprint at several client sites to get in the building, and at least two clients have run a criminal background check on me before giving me a temporary badge. But it doesn't make me feel like a criminal - perhaps I am insufficiently hysterical.

So you say. What are your credentials? I know a LOT about profiling, data, and computer systems and I know I could build a system that could flag a suspect fingerprint in a few seconds. Mastercard built a system that could process several hundred million transactions per minute in under three seconds without even getting up a sweat.

Not saying the Gov't will pull it off (see also IRS system updates), just that it's not such a big deal.

Again, an opinion masquerading as a statement of fact, unless you're a bona fide security wonk.

Ah, well, healthy paranoia bout the government keeping things like, say, background checks for gun purchasers past the 48 hour timeline is pretty healthy. Its just that since Hoover they haven't done much of a good job with it (see also Nixon and Clinton) so it's not high up on my list.

Have fun.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Private companies and government agencies are different things, for a start.

Most of the time people are only fingerprinted when they're suspected of committing a crime. Thus the connection between being fingerprinted isn't quote as "hysterical" as you may think. Plenty of ordinary people don't like being fingerprinted to come to the US and have cut back or entirely stopped coming. Making the process even more intrusive and cumbersome will only further decrease the number of visitors. I hardly think that damaging our own economy (which is a stated goal of Al Qaeda), for the illusion of security is worthwhile.

You are right that East Germany probably would have loved the technology we could have. Amazing that with extensive files on a huge percentage of their population and all of their draconian tactics they couldn't even predict the fall of the Berlin Wall, or keep residents of East Berlin locked in.

This sounds absolutely hysterical to me! The Government would never do anything wrong. Never has one, never will one. Thinking otherwise is hysterical paranoia.

Really? I just gave several examples. And if you don't have a very big balance at your bank, they'll take your fingerprint on the back of your paycheck.

And yet Disney has an all time high number of visitors from Europe due to the ForEx situation. Care to cite something besides a broad generalization.

Actually, I was talking about the CCTV network in Britan, which I hope we will never have. And it would not have helped them stave off their eventual doom - communism/socialism just don't work compared to capitalism.

These are all examples of getting one fingerprint taken. Getting them all is different. Furthermore, the percentage of people getting fingerprinted (for office access or standard banking) is pretty low. Many people already complain about this kind of thing and avoid doing business with companies that operate in this manner. Dollar or one of the other car rental agencies started taking fingerprints as a condition of rental, but, IIRC, canceled the program after receiving complaints.

I would agree that for a big discount people would be willing to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do. I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence that travel is being negatively impacted by the "US Visit" program, but then, I haven't seen any hard evidence to the contrary.

Intuitively one wouldn't expect the program to have a positive effect (certainly nobody decides to travel to the US for the purpose of being photographed and fingerprinted), so the (intuitive) best case would be a zero effect.

Why not?

And capitalism doesn't work very well when governments discourage free trade by continuously thinking up new ways to discourage trade and travel.

That depends on the bank. I'm not wealthy by any sense of the word (comfortable maybe, but definitely not wealthy), but I've deposited serveral checks at my credit union bigger than my directly deposited salary and I have NEVER been asked for a finger print. And these were with personal checks and corporate checks written for several thousand dollars.

The only bank I've ever seen take fingerprints was Wells Fargo, and that was only for people who didn't have an account there. I don't know if they still do that or not.

I'm not the topic.

I get my news from more sources than just the news when it comes to these matters. But what does it matter, for I'm NOT the topic.

It's not healthy paranoia; it's a realization that there's such a thing as the slippery slope ... especially given public-private party discussions on this particular subject matter.

Are you saying that of intelliegnce of American people is limited to that of a 5 year old? WHat about the crew, TSA itself, the DHS? No one beieves itis' effective. If you ttribute that erronaeous belief to the level of a 5 year old, are you saying the crew who kick people off, the plane, or turn a plane around asking for an F-16 escort because of what ceratin passengers look like think like 5 yr olds?
If the crew's intelligence is at the level of a 5 yr old then maybe they shouldn't be the crew?

Are you saying the security is effective?
or
Are you saying the seurity is not effective?

If the the passengers, the crew, the TSA and the DHS believed that thier screening was effective, there would be nofrequent incidents of a jewish person kicked off a plane or dozens of Muslims or muslim looking passengers would create a need of an F-16 escort.

What does govt controlled medicine have to do with this? Govt controlled medicine may or may not work. TSA is definitely not working.

Some ople believe your mother-in-law is smarter.

Really? How? Time? So you fly across the Atlantic (or Pacific), wait in line for thirty minutes to get through (existing) customs, but once they take another 20 second to get the rest of your right hand on the scanner, you turn around and go home? Seems far-fetched.

So now the standard is that if it impacts too many people it is bad? So showing ID to buy ciggies or booze is bad? How about when you use your Visa at Harris Teeter?

Good for them. The tourists who don't like it can go to Canada. The bank customers who don't like fees can use a Federal Credit Union. The people who don't want to take the drivers test can ride a bike. Works for me.


Ceteris paribus then, plus a slice of Occams Razor. In any case, don't you think you'd hear prune-face Pelosi trumpeting it? Or Iger complaining about theme park numbers?

Well, intuition around the earth being flat is often wrong. The technical term for arguing the inverse of the positive escapes me, but I think that the lack of anti-Bush flack from the normal Dem whiners leads me to believe that there is absolutely no damage whatsoever.

Do you really thing that the Smythes from Amersham really give a crap about being fingerprinted by customs before they can to go Bush Gardens? About as much as I care that Brazilian Customs has a zerox of my Passport and my bank details.


Why not?


And capitalism doesn't work very well when governments discourage free trade by continuously thinking up new ways to discourage trade and travel.[/QUOTE]

Some "opel" probably do. Of course all those Canadians going to Buffalo to get hip transplants don't.

My point was that no matter how much you believe stuff because you belive it is "supposed to be right" doesn't make it right.

Prove the TSA isn't working? How many ROP'ers have blown up planes in the last five years? Doesn't mean they're perfect, doesn't mean it was because of everything or anything they did, just means you can't PROVE they aren't working.

Just take your d*mn shoes off at security, throw away your water, and stop whining. I was sitting in the airport waiting to fly to IAD on 911, and I flew on two of the four 911 flights in 00/01. So I'll wait patiently at security off if it makes me one iota more likely to get home to my wife and children.

Well, I was certainly comparing someone to my five year old, not to the benefit of that someone.
I do, based on results and my common sense. I've got a college degree, I've flown 3M+ miles on several airlines over the last 20+ years, I'm relatively smart, I've (so far) raised my children well, I've been with the same woman for 15+ years, I can even walk and chew bubble gum at the sametime.

Is the TSA some monolithic entity, like the NRA on gun control? Obviously not. Is DHS? Pffft.

Well, it is non-frequent, isn't it? Since 911 it's happened <5 times by my count. The percentage is, what, diddly/squat?