mandolino

What information are they getting from your fingerprints that they can't get when they scan your passport?
The only thing is a confirmation of the identity that was originally meant to be guaranteed by just your passport.
There is a legitimate argument that the state and other organisations gather too much information on private individuals, but proof of identity at the airport is not the front line in this battle.

bluwater

Depending on the Zimmerman verdict, Florida may qualify.

TheLinguist

^ That was sort of my line of thinking as well. I guess to each his own, but I still don't see this as an invasion of privacy

Spiff

The passport without biometrics is sufficient proof. Nothing additional is required.

As I'm an advocate of open borders, I'd be happy to eschew passports all together.

OskiBear

What's the purpose of the print?
I just got printed when I went to Argentina this year - don't recall that from prior trips.

Also, here in the US, although it's been ages since I've done this, I seem to recall being asked to provide a thumb print when cashing a check.

I was also printed when notarizing a document.
I was also printed when leasing a car a few weeks ago.

None of these are criminal activities

Spiff

Argentina uses it for customs processing purposes. I've stopped visiting there since they've adopted it.

I refuse to be printed for cashing a check, notarizing a document, or leasing a car. All of these are examples of a business-consumer relationship. I don't have to submit and can still get a check cashed, get a document notarized, or buy/lease/rent a car by either refusing or by going to a competitor who does not insist on such unnecessary data collection.

Bottom line: my biometrics are mine. I don't give them out.

Badenoch

The United States has in my experience a greater tolerance for fingerprinting and use it more often. In Canada, for example, fingerprinting is quite rare for anything other than matters pertaining to criminal activities. Canadians are not at least for now required to provide prints going into the U.S. although I don't care either way and would not avoid a country because they required my prints before permitting entry.

mikew99

You're acting as if everyone draws the line in the same place. One man's mountain is another's molehill.

Although I don't personally object to fingerprinting, I do object to the nude-o-scopes, and I won't visit any country that requires it. (I'm talking to you, Australia, UK, and Russia!) Nevertheless, aside from a few head-shaking moments, I don't begrudge anyone who willingly submits to what I consider to be a invasion of privacy and a gross abdication of freedom. I think society is worse off for it, but undoubtedly they are merely drawing the line in a place different from where I do.

GUWonder

If the voodoo "security" of profiling were to work reliably, then the country ought to have had better results to show for it after doing combing operations in the Palestinian-majority areas under Israeli control for decades.

The irony of the last line in the above quoted post. Those who are not ignorant about matters in this area have know for years that the massive surveillance programs run by the US derive their legal cover in large part from the very same basis that allows for the current security policies at US airports. And the travel-related ID demands of the USG are being used in conjunction with mail cover type authorization that is another pillar of the legal basis used by the US to operate the massive surveillance infrastructure and use it on US persons too.

To answer the question in the last post quoted above: fingerprints. Fingerprints don't necessarily confirm identity. Familiar with the head of the EDL in the UK and his travel history? Then no need to ask me to explain this paragraph.

BadgerBoi

I would consider it to be an appropriate part of the hospitality if I was arrested and being checked in by the constabulary. As a guest in a foreign country, well, my hosts can go and get stuffed if that's how they want to treat me.

cbn42

Several years ago, the same could have been said of taking your picture.

Is there a rational reason why having your fingerprints taken places you at risk in some way, or is it a purely emotional argument?

GUWonder

... and it should be said still. Governments and government contractors have already used some of those photos taken for purposes that may be considered questionable, not that most people have a clue about how that has taken place and probably will continue to take place.

Rational reason or not, fingerprints can be used to place someone at risk. Captured scanning of passport biodata pages or of passenger/hotel guest photos can also be used to place someone at risk. Can be used and has been used. To figure this out doesn't require spoon-feeding.

mandolino

It doesn't require any special deep knowledge to assume that , you just have to read a few magazines and websites, although I think you are overestimating the efficiency of US surveillance programs and the people who run them.

My point is that the balance of biometric data such as fingerprints falls in favour of the fingerprintee since it confirms that you are who you say you are, and that is all it does.

Anything else has been gathered by other means. Of course ID checks might link to other details about you in databases that no authority has any business holding or accessing or using - but those details are there whether your ID is confirmed by passport, credit card or fingerprints.

GUWonder

Given your earlier post, it indicated a lack of awareness of the connection, thereby fostering situational irony.

I certainly am not one to overestimate the efficiency of the USG. I know plenty of holes and hole-makers.

The balance of fingerprints don't confirm that the individual is who they say they are. They may help to confirm something about a person who has been previously affiliated with the balance of fingerprints but don't necessarily confirm that a person is who they say they are. Aren't you aware of that British EDL leader? He got into the US using a fellow British citizen's passport despite being fingerprinted. Surely you are familiar with the EDL?

"Might link"? That uncertain still?

"No authority"? The authorities have the authority to make holding/accessing/using the data part of their business and do utilize it.

That information (read: "details") may be gathered by other means doesn't necessarily justify the means used.

mandolino

Not on a first-name basis, but of course I do read about them. And what I read was that your "British English Defence League leader" was caught when he was fingerprinted by US officials on arrival , told to attend a second interview, but gave them the slip at the airport, and was arrested later.