Why we will not be visiting the US in the forseeable future

[drkitten]

drkitten,
Do you take more issue with the collecting of the fingerprints, or the accuracy of the data once taken?

Well, as you point out, the two are independent questions. But they're related.

If the data was considered correct, would it still not be worth the effort?

That depends somewhat on how the data is used. I've suggested for years, for example, that the easiest way to get a nuclear bomb into the United States is to hide it inside a bale of marijuana. Putting 100% accurate identity-detectors at every airport in the United States will do little when someone can just slip into a small boat in Toronto and be in Buffalo after four hours undetected. Depending upon the costs of the system, it still may not be cost-effective even with perfect accuracy.

But beyond that is the question of what happens once someone gets in.

If the method was considered foolproof (1:10,000,000), would you support identifying US citizens and those wishing to enter in this way, or would you consider it an infringement on personal privacy?

As a method of identifying people who wish entry, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But the proposal goes substantially beyond that. For example, once I've entered the United States, that fact is recorded in a database that may be shared more or less at will with anyone. The government has a legitimate interest in making sure that I am who I say I am when I enter the country -- but I'm not sure that their interest extends to, for example, knowing where I stay when I'm in the States, or where I stayed when I was in France on my last trip. I think there's too much potential abuse in having that data on record and freely shared.

 

[drkitten]

You think that technology that doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time should be discarded?

I think that technology that makes the situation worse instead of better should be discarded.

This proposal appears to fit that rubric quite well.

 

[drkitten]

That's not the point. You, and others here, seem to be under some kind of impression that we should observe only the bad guys. You can't tell if someone is a bad guy or a good guy until you observe him.

Yeah, and until recently the cops seemed to understand that as well. They called it, among other things, "probable cause."

How do you expect to get the personal information you need about someone to determine he's a bad guy without observing him and collecting information about him?

Via good old-fashioned police work.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ever notice how rarely "polite" appears with either "free" or "brave"?

Oh say, do you think that the brave aren't polite,
and that freedom is marked by an ill-natured manner?
Then, though bullies and thugs may agree that you're right,
that is not what it says in The Star-Spangled Banner.
To be boorish and rude, and obnoxious and crude,
marks out, not a brave, but an arrogant mood.
When you claim only jerks can be free and be brave
I bet Francis Scott Key must revolve in his grave.

 

[Region Rat]

Well, as you point out, the two are independent questions. But they're related.

Agreed

That depends somewhat on how the data is used. I've suggested for years, for example, that the easiest way to get a nuclear bomb into the United States is to hide it inside a bale of marijuana. Putting 100% accurate identity-detectors at every airport in the United States will do little when someone can just slip into a small boat in Toronto and be in Buffalo after four hours undetected. Depending upon the costs of the system, it still may not be cost-effective even with perfect accuracy.

Yah, but any bad guy worth his salt wouldn't bring anything in through a normal port of entry anyway. I see it as more of a deterrent in that if the so-called bad guys know that we are checking fingerprints, or retinal scans, or whatever, and they are in the system somewhere, it will make them have to work a little to get in another way. I agree that we can't stop the methods you had, but why make it easy on them.

But beyond that is the question of what happens once someone gets in.

As a method of identifying people who wish entry, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But the proposal goes substantially beyond that. For example, once I've entered the United States, that fact is recorded in a database that may be shared more or less at will with anyone. The government has a legitimate interest in making sure that I am who I say I am when I enter the country -- but I'm not sure that their interest extends to, for example, knowing where I stay when I'm in the States, or where I stayed when I was in France on my last trip. I think there's too much potential abuse in having that data on record and freely shared.

I agree that the government, once it lets you in and has no record of you being involved in any nastiness, has no business tracking your movements. But, like was said upwards a ways, even if the government is not tracking your movements, Visa knows where you stayed on your last vacation, American Express knows where you picked up and dropped off your rental car, and BP knows where you bought gas. If you're doing things that you don't mind corporate america knowing, what's the harm in some mindless bureaucrat knowing too? Unless you live on a cash basis, and not a lot do- except probably all of the bad guys, there are really not too many secrets left.

I don't think it intrinsically infringes on my personal freedom for the government to have a real identifier for me. In a way, that should protect me from having my identity used by someone else. I have a picture on my drivers license that shows the government the face that goes with the name and social security number. But how do I know that there's not some guy out there with a drivers license that has a picture with a fake (big) nose, cheesey mustache, and badly cut wig on, who claims to be me? If he had to put his thumb on a thumbprint scanner, it might save me some grief.

 

[DanishDynamite]

On a side note, does anyone understand this policy of putting all canisters which could potentially hold liquids into a clear plastic bag? What might the possible purpose of this be? And this odd limit of (I think) 1 liter of canister in total. What's up with that?

I've traveled every week to Norway and back these past 7 months. I've religiously used the plastic bag for my lighter every time. But except for once, I just stuffed the bag in my coat pocket and sent my coat through the X-Ray machine. Picked up my coat on the other side, unwrapped my lighter, dumped the bag into a bin, and walked into the Duty Free. Uhhhh...?

 

[Zep]

You know, way back in 1992 I went to Canada w/ some friends. Canadian customs took us out of our car and took us to separate rooms where we were asked about how much money we had on us, what credit cards we had, what we were planning on doing in Canada, where we were staying, etc. All while they they searched every square inch of the car and our luggage. I was expecting the strip search and body cavity search next, but they stopped just short of that.

Never been back to Canada, nor do I want to.

Were you carrying any dope?

 

[Geek Goddess]

On a side note, does anyone understand this policy of putting all canisters which could potentially hold liquids into a clear plastic bag? What might the possible purpose of this be? And this odd limit of (I think) 1 liter of canister in total. What's up with that?

I've traveled every week to Norway and back these past 7 months. I've religiously used the plastic bag for my lighter every time. But except for once, I just stuffed the bag in my coat pocket and sent my coat through the X-Ray machine. Picked up my coat on the other side, unwrapped my lighter, dumped the bag into a bin, and walked into the Duty Free. Uhhhh...?

It's specifically to limit the total quantity you carry on. Where they came up with the quart-sized bag, I dunno. Lighters aren't allowed on US flights, either in checked luggage or carry-on. Here, you would be breaking the law, but would be probably not caught unless you were randomly selected for pat-down.

I'm worried about all those 75 year-old wheel-chair bound grandmothers from Garden City, Kansas. I'm glad that they are screened equally with CamelDude. A lot of old ladies on walkers have blown up or hijacked planes.

 

[Zep]

For the record, as a non-USAian who visits semi-regularly.

1) I have no problem with identifying myself clearly at any US border. They can see my passport, my visa, my plane tickets, my drivers license, etc, and check up on them all while I wait. I don't mind...in fact, I insist on it. I do not want to be mistaken for any bad guy, nor do I want to give any official clod the slightest excuse at any point in my visit of wasting my time and theirs hauling me off to the lockup while they try to discover if I am really Achmed Al Camel, the notorious plane-bomber from the PLO.

2) My experience with US border checks as of 12 months ago was that the staff there were notoriously slack, and also had not the faintest idea what they were doing nor what to do if a "security risk" of the type they were supposed to be looking for actually turned up. First-hand, I do know that they had no procedures AT ALL for dealing with such a case - absolutely stymied. So it is plainly obvious that they are being paid not to think or act, but by the number (or weight?) of people they push through the detection process per unit time.

3) The positive side of this is that I rather much doubt that fingerprints, credit card details, and email addresses would ever be actually searched actively for suspicious behaviour. Mainly because I rather doubt that anything would ever be found - the "masterminds" are more than one step ahead of such crude filters already. Bet on it. But also because I doubt that, once collected, the data will ever be acted on. That's simply not the collectors' job to do that.

4) The negative side is that it is a waste of friggin' time for everyone. No matter how politely dealt with, it makes it no less of a hassle to be held up and questioned for no appreciable benefit beyond meeting some "held up and questioned" quota set by some anonymous middle manager in the Homeland Security section.

Also, following from point (3), I doubt that any data collected will actually be verified at the collection point. Which is the obvious place, technically speaking, but the worst place, practically speaking. If it is not acted on immediately, then Mr Achmed Al Camel, terrorist mastermind, will have long gone to ground (or more likely assumed a new indentity) before anyone has a hope of finding him in a reasonable amount of time.

In short, while I sympathise with the desire to protect and patrol your borders, USA, this is simply an expensive annoying feelgood vote-grabber with no real teeth to it at all.

 

[fuelair]

No, it only looks like a non sequitur to someone who misses the point. Politeness, as Godmode describes it, is deference. The free and brave do not kneel so easily.

Hope that helps. Tomorrow we'll tackle the concept of "irony."

Don't forget to bring the irony meter with you!!

 

[Region Rat]

Like somebody said previously, its a no-win situation. Given the current political climate in the US, whatever is done will either be a) too much, and therefore silly; b) not enough, and therefore negligent; or c) the wrong thing, and therefore ignorant.

You've got to believe that the guys who want to get us know what security measures we have in place. If not, then what are we worried about in the first place? Look, the airlines have checked for guns for a long time (albeit badly at times). But they have checked, and there has not been a gun hijacking in a very long time. So the bad guys used razor knives. So the airlines ban all sharp things to the point of silliness. So the bad guys tried a shoe bomb. So the airlines ban all lighters (even though matches were used in the attempt), and make us all take off our shoes. So the bad guys (supposedly) were going to try gel explosives. So the airlines make thousands of passengers throw out thousands of $$ worth of shampoo and toothpaste. So the (bad?) guys ask for seat belt extenders without needing them and find out the passengers are still watching. So what's next. Now we'll fingerprint everyone coming in. You can bet that the bad guys, if they are intending mayhem, will send a nobody who has never been on the grid to come over innocently with some perfectly verifiable identity and reason, to commit said mayhem. But, if the airlines (or US customs) did the same old same old that they ever did, another plane may have been taken over with box cutters, some shoe bomb may have exploded, or some verifiably trained and experienced bad guy may have come over to commit some mayhem. And the person in charge would rightly be charged with malfeasence.

So, like I said, its a no win situation.

So what do you do? Complain when it's too much or silly because they won't try the old tricks again, or complain when its not enough and they repeat what worked before?

 

[Kopji]

2004
The United States today expressed "regret" at Brazil's decision to begin fingerprinting and photographing Americans in response to similar border security measures introduced by Washington.

"While we acknowledge Brazil's sovereign right to determine the requirements for entry into Brazil, we regret the way in which new procedures have suddenly been put in place that single out US citizens for exceptional treatment that has meant lengthy delays in processing, such as the case today with a more than nine hour delay for some US citizens arriving at Rio's international airport," the US embassy said in a statement.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/06/1073268024215.html

...

 

[WildCat]

Were you carrying any dope?

No.

 

[Gurdur]

Knowing how a fair few of the posters here carry on, I am sure that if say the situation was reversed --
i.e. the USA was a tad more relaxed, and the EU instead introduced rules that all citizens of all North and South American countries who went as tourists to the EU had to be fingerprinted with all 10 fingers, would have all their emails to and from the email address used for ticket booking read, and would have all their credit-card transactions on govt file,

then we would see quite a lot of certain posters screaming blue murder, screaming that the Europeans had become a totalitarian, fascist entity, and of course, anti-American.

 

[mgidm86]

I think the email address requirement is very important. You see, they aren't analyzing the contents of your email, they are looking at the address itself.

For example:
samir@iamgoingtoblowupyourembassy.com
akhmed@searchme4bombmakingmaterials.com
john@myshoeisabomb.net

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

That's funny. My experiences in the 1980's in Italian and Turkish airports, where armed guards with machine pistols were commonplace, didn't make me stop traveling in Europe. You know what go me to cancel my European vacation plans a few years ago, specifically France? America bashing. We'd been to France in the 90's, but for too short a time, and were lining up a trip for 10 days. This was in 2002. By the time I had to pay for tickets, or not, I cancelled the trip. It's OK.

I'll spend my travel dollars at home until the security leaches of Europe can put a civil tongue in it.

This "civility" thing works both ways, which is a pity.

The world got meaner, so Osama wins.

DR

This is getting away from the topic at hand a bit, but I just don't get where the image of the "Ugly American" is coming from. What is it based on? American foreign policy? Do "America Bashers" realise that a tourist from the United States is not responsible for the problems in the Middle East? Do they realise that that tourist is voluntarily spending his or her money in the "America Basher's" own backyard, stimulating their economy and providing employment?

I live close to the American border, and because of the weaker Canadian dollar, we get lots of Americans bringing their vehicles to our business for repairs. I can't recall even one of them being jerks, not even the young couple from Ohio who had to spend their honeymoon here in Estevan after their rental car died (if you have to spend your honeymoon in Estevan, you have my permission to be a jerk). Generally speaking, they let you fix their vehicle without breathing down your neck while you're doing it, they don't complain about the price, and they always pay what they owe. And, when they go, they say, "Thank you."

Sometimes, they even send you cookies, or write favorable articles about you in their local paper.

 

[Gurdur]

.....Thanks a bunch.....

Considering that certain countries in the EU have suffered much worse much longer from terrorism than has the USA, and continue to suffer from terrorism such as the UDA/split-off_IRA or the Basque seperatists, and yet those countries still manage to defend EU data privacy, I would say your whole line of "argument" in this thread stinks.

 

[steverino]

Considering that certain countries in the EU have suffered much worse much longer from terrorism than has the USA, and continue to suffer from terrorism such as the UDA/split-off_IRA or the Basque seperatists, and yet those countries still manage to defend EU data privacy, I would say your whole line of "argument" in this thread stinks.

The obvious American response to you is that maybe if European nations got more aggresive like the U.S., there would be fewer incidents of terror there.

 

[Gurdur]

The obvious American response to you is that maybe if European nations got more aggresive like the U.S., there would be fewer incidents of terror there.

That would be the stereotyped response, but it is more than highly dubious. Despite the "aggressive" response of the USA, the USA seems to live in markedly more fear than say Spain (Basques) or Britain (northern Ireland) as regards to that all. It's not clear at all that the USA's actions have made it markedly more safer than say Spain's actions have made Spain; in fact the rhetoric emanating from Washington is all about Fear, fear and more fear instead.

There ís a main point being made here; that blanket measures of this sort seem more driven by an artificially heightened hysteria than by any practical reasons.
_________

Mind you, seperately. I am still waiting for the self-proclaimed Defenders Of Our Hard-Won Freedoms on this board to weigh in and declare how wrong it is for any govt to forcibly gather any data in such a broad way like this, but I guess their defence is highly partial. Partial in both senses. As you can see, apart from the main point of the thread, I also kinda find it fascinating how political POV's on the board can be so inconsistant.

Or IOW if I didn't follow individual POV's and actions on the board, I would be mindnumbingly bored out of my freaking mind much of the time by following threads but not people as well.

 

[steverino]

in fact the rhetoric emanating from Washington is all about Fear, fear and more fear instead.

You do not fear terrorism in England?

And are you saying we in America SHOULD NOT fear terrorism simply because Bush says we SHOULD?


Also, Godmode declares on her thread that "I AM NOT A SECURITY RISK!"
Does such a declaration exonerate her (or him)? Is such a declaration in your opinion as trustworthy as, say, finger-printing?