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

[Mosquito]

Certainly. You make the assumption that each of the factors you lists reduces the probability of a mis-identification. But one of them actually increases it.

You suggested a 0.05 probability that "my given fingerprint will be machine-matched with any other given person" -- or equivalently for any two people (A and B), the probabiliy that A will not be misidentfied is 0.95. (That's an unreasonably high probabiliy of misidentification --- but that makes the math easier to work with).

Now, let's look at three people -- A, B, and C. What is the probability that A will not be misidentified as B and will not be misidentified as C? The probability that A will be correctly identified is actually 0.95 * 0.95, or only 0.9025! For four people (A,B,C,D), the probability that A will be correctly identified drops to about 86%, and so forth.

In fact, under this set of assumptions, if there are twenty "terrorists" in the database, then the probability that a person will be falsely identified as a terrorist is nearly two out of three (64%). If there are 100 terrorists in the database, then the chances of making it through a terrorist screening unflagged are about one in two hundred. To put it another way, if a 777 full of people arrived at immigration, we would expect two of the passengers to not show up as "terrorists" in this database.

I think it would be worse than that, because it will not only be a question of being mis-identified as a known terrorist, everybody who get different identities from the fingerprints and their passports would be suspicious. Maybe not from the start, but pretty soon.

As the database of fingerprints to search gets large, this will only make huge amounts of Passport=Mosquito, Fingerprint=DrKitten, Conclusion=Possibly up to no good, further timeconsuming checking required.

If not, the security dudes and dudettes will quickly become numb and not bother raising an alarm if a "7 foot bearded arab with a dialysis machine" got a match with some terrorist guy or other. Why bother, their own brother matched that one only last week.

Mosquito - Not impressed, yet (the system could be rather good for fighting some crime, but I doubt plane-related terrorism is one of those)

 

[Almo]

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

But you didn't have to give them access to your credit details and stuff, right? It's not the impoliteness that's keeping him out. It's the privacy issue.

Oh, so we should identify the bad guys in our midst only after they've blown up a building. Thanks a bunch.

The object is to stop them before they commit a crime.

That's like guilty before taken to court to be proven innocent. The mentality of "stop them before they commit a crime" has already lead to the US striking other countries first in the name of defense.

It's over used, but:

Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

 

[bigred]

Yeah let's wait until we're hit first, THEN look for the bad guys.

Again that worked so well for the Twin Towers, didn't it....

No one is saying "find the most likely terrorist suspects and hang them w/o a trial." Pls don't twist words; it demeans you and the discussion in general.

As for "giving up liberty for security," that's all a question of degree.

 

[fishbob]

As for "giving up liberty for security," that's all a question of degree.

That is a scary thought.
How much and how many of my inalienable rights should be taken from me for your security? Or more accurately, for your feeling of security.

 

[steverino]

Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

"Well done is better than well said." Ben Franklin
That means quotes are "cute" but they don't help catch the bad guys.


"Those who give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither" is the quote, which does not apply here anyway.

 

[rikzilla]

But you didn't have to give them access to your credit details and stuff, right? It's not the impoliteness that's keeping him out. It's the privacy issue.

Better not test drive a new car then. They usually pull your credit history before you come back from that short spin. Don't worry though..it's legal...small print you know. Giving a salesman your drivers license in most states counts as approval for credit checks. Also they may have a simple looking "visitors logbook" at the dealership they want you to sign in on...page over to the last page...there's usually a bit of fine print pasted there saying you are giving permission for a credit check just by signing the book.

Face it, you have no credit privacy...none of us do.

-z

 

[luchog]

In the good old days of this forum, right-wingers used to throw the following Ben Franklin quote at me as a magic charm, especially IIRC during gun control debates. I think I can fairly throw it back at this time:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Wrong yet again.

The quote is "The man who will trade essential freedom for for perceived security..."

The key word there is perceived. The problem I have with many of the current security measures isn't that they "eliminate freedom", because for the most part, they demonstrably don't. My problem is that the majority of the high-profile practices create a huge inconvenience, and are far too easily abused as tools of petty harassment, with no demonstrable security benefit at all.

Security technology Bruce Schneier has made some pointed analyses of many airport security practices and proposals. Most of them are there to defend against "hollywood threats", threats that look dramatic and scary, but have absolutely no basis in reality; and are fairly useless for real-world security. The "liquid explosives" threat being a fairly typical case in point.

 

[luchog]

They're not that bad you know, once you get used to them.

I disagree with that vehemently every time I wear tight pants.

 

[bigred]

That is a scary thought.
How much and how many of my inalienable rights should be taken from me for your security? Or more accurately, for your feeling of security.

We are probably (hopefully) closer in agreement than either of us realize and getting snagged on semantics. My point again (and pardon those who have heard me say this before) is freedoms are not and should be absolute. If they were, the result would be anarchy. Gov't by definition sacrifices some liberties, including some in the name of security, and your rights have always been restricted. As they should be. If disagree w/that idea, you believe in anarchy. I find THAT idea scary.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are surveilled ...

No, dammit, we are surveyed.

The verb is "surveyed", the noun is "surveillance", and back-formation of verbs which ALREADY EXIST is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

I'll shoot down the other nonsense in this thread when I'm actually awake. My time, it's half past five in the morning. And yet I still know that "surveilled" IS NOT A PROPER WORD.

Excuse me, but this sort of thing just acquires my caprine ungulate.

 

[Big Al]

No, dammit, we are surveyed.

The verb is "surveyed", the noun is "surveillance", and back-formation of verbs which ALREADY EXIST is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

I'll shoot down the other nonsense in this thread when I'm actually awake. My time, it's half past five in the morning. And yet I still know that "surveilled" IS NOT A PROPER WORD.

Excuse me, but this sort of thing just acquires my caprine ungulate.

Sorry, Dr. A. The verb is "to survey". "Surveyed" is the past participle.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, dammit, we are surveyed.

The verb is "surveyed", the noun is "surveillance", and back-formation of verbs which ALREADY EXIST is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

I'll shoot down the other nonsense in this thread when I'm actually awake. My time, it's half past five in the morning. And yet I still know that "surveilled" IS NOT A PROPER WORD.

Excuse me, but this sort of thing just acquires my caprine ungulate.

In the interest of more Churchillian prose, 'watched' would have done nicely.

DR

 

[bigred]

Excuse me, but this sort of thing just acquires my caprine ungulate.

Not half as much as people using obscure words (in a nonsensical way no less) bugs me.



OK, back to the rude/dumb airport situation.....

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not half as much as people using obscure words (in a nonsensical way no less) bugs me.



OK, back to the rude/dumb airport situation.....

He said such poor usage gets his goat, which I construe to mean that it "vexes him sorely," hence his ascerbic reaction.

Made sense to me.

DR

 

[steverino]

No matter how well I write, Dr. Adequate still disagrees with me on every level.

 

[aries]

"In a nutshell, the EU has signed an agreement with the us, so that if we visit we are basically allowing them to access our credit card histories, and monitor our email (coming and going!) forever, and whenever they wish. Plus, we get to give them our fingerprints. No thanks, Bush." Godmode - from page 1.

As much as I too love the U.S. of A and its people, I'm not going to the U.S. any time soon. To me, it is clearly a violation of my right to privacy that any
(& all) U.S. officers can go through my credit card bills any time they want to as well as read my email any time the U.S. sees fit to do so.

To me, at least, this is a lot more worrying than dealing with a few Italian or Turkish guards all over the place or even a few more English policemen way back in 1979, when I went to London with class in school.

Policeman and such you can deal with; they are their place to make sure we are safe and that no-one is harmed and such.

Giving personal information to the U.S. Government sort of implies, to me, at least that we're all 'undesirable aliens to U.S.' as I've been is a status that you might get if you misbehaved in the US while I was an exchange, in the U.S., 24+ years ago.

Also, I don't really get why they want European credit cards billing info. The U.S. needs to realize that credit cards are not as comman in the European union that it is in the United States.

I mainly use my credit cards to purchase train tickets to go see my older sister or to buy games like Gothic 3 or Neverwinter Nights 2 or Dreamfall: The Longest Journey on the internet. As for the email, I got, unfortunately a lot of junk mail, from shall we say 'sites of ill repute and the like' which I, of course, immediately delete.

 

[aries]

As for the whole catch them before they commit a crime, the Danish Police Intelligence Agence (PET)
do this in a very subtle way --- by talking to people and such. If they find something, usually they invite people to a friendly (and I do mean friendly) talk, in order to take a preventive talk with them - just to let them that they are being watch. This old fashioned approach seem to be working quite well.

The English police did something similar when they
hindered the planes from [censored] last summer.

On a more general note, I'm not that assured that the whole 'if you don't have anything to fear, why should be against it' argument quite is going to make it. To me, a sign of modern state and democracy is that you're (always) considered innocent until proven guilty.

By taking fingerprints etc. it could well be other way 'round. The reason, imo, is not one taken for of security reasons, it is one taken out of fear.
And if we start to fear the terrorists so much that
we change our routines and the way our society operates, then the terroists would truly have won.

And then the Ben Franklin qoute will rightfully be
true.

As a final comment, I should say that I on no endorse, nor support terrorism, in any shape or form.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And then the Ben Franklin qoute will rightfully be
true.

As a final comment, I should say that I on no endorse, nor support terrorism, in any shape or form.

Ben Franklin also said:

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Add to that the lyrics of the country song "Family Tradition" and you can appreciate that beer has more than simple nutritional value.

Why do you drink? Why do you roll smoke?

Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?

Stop and think it over - try to put yourself in this position

When I get stoned, I'm just carryin' on and old family tradition

That includes a pun, since a couple of generations ago, "stoned" meant drunk, before it meant "high on herb."

DR

 

[Mojo]

Interesting people, aren´t they? They are so scared out of their wits (such as they are) that they´ll agree with *anything* that they´re told makes them safer, no matter what it is. And then, they have the chuzpah to call other people cowards...

I think the expression generally used was "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". And then they decide not to travel for fear of "America bashing".

 

[bigred]

By taking fingerprints etc. it could well be other way 'round. The reason, imo, is not one taken for of security reasons, it is one taken out of fear.
And if we start to fear the terrorists so much that
we change our routines and the way our society operates, then the terroists would truly have won.

Nothing personal as this has been said by several, but sorry I'm tired of this as it's quite untrue and frankly doesn't even make sense.

First, changing the way our society operates by being (or trying to be) more secure after an attack is hardly "letting the terrorists win." It means we are trying to get better about preventing another such attack (or attacks in general). To do otherwise would be about as stupid as it gets. Now you can debate whether we're doing it right or not, but to make the effort is a no-brainer.

Second, even the idea (hopefully this is what is really meant) that we now live in more fear than we did before doesn't even mean they "win" either, because for them "winning" means killing as many of us as possible - in fact, ultimately all of us, even tho that's impossible (short of destroying the planet).

I think they considered 9/11 a big victory, but don't feel they're won - and I really doubt most get much if any satisfaction in our trying to become more secure or whining about invasions of our privacy.