U.S. Begins Digital Fingerprinting In Airports

lemist writes "Cross Match has rolled out digital fingerprinting at major airports in the United States according to MSNBC. It's designed to increase border security. They appear to be using Cross Match's Verifier 300 LC. Note that the actual capture of the fingerprint requires no interaction with the device. It determines when the image quality is excellent and grabs it."

Comments

28 countries exempt

[Brahmastra]

28 countries are exempt from this testing including a lot of western european countries where the Sept 11th terrorists moved around with impunity. This fingerprinting scheme aint going to fix anything.

Re:28 countries exempt

[GuyMannDude]

But you should be a citizen of one of those 28 to get excluded, if I've understood correctly. AFAIK, the Sept 11th terrorists weren't, although they'd lived in Europe.

You're missing the point. All the terrorists have to do is get a forged passport from one of those countries and they'll slip through. A security net with tons of holes doesn't do any good.

On a related topic, does anyone know what the Pfa (probability of false alarm) for fingerprint matches is? It would be interesting to take this number, multiply it by the number of people coming into the country every day (subtracing out those from the magic 28 countries) and figure out how many jet-lag weary travelers are going to be in for one hell of a rude shock when they get to America.

GMD

Re:28 countries exempt

[jaxdahl]

Actually, those countries already have compatible passports which contain most/all of the information that this system captures anyway, so it isn't that big of a deal.

Re:28 countries exempt

[donnz]

including a lot of western european countries where the Sept 11th terrorists moved around with impunity

Well, they also moved around the USA with "impunity". In fact, they used USA based training facilities to learn how to fly planes. They also used internal *not* international flights.

So, finger print and photograph all internal passengers first, please. Put your gun totting marshals on all intenal flights, then if you find all that acceptable extend it to international flights (most European countries already have had way better airport security than the US has for a long time).

Re:28 countries exempt

[UberGeeb]

Or, you could RTFA and see "Officials have said false hits on the system have been less than 0.1 percent in trial runs." Or, about a 50% chance for a false positive on each 747 coming in.

Re:28 countries exempt

[The Only Druid]

Um, you're missing the point: ALL of the exempt countries, by rule, will be required to be machine readable, including identification information required to access the criminal/terrorist databases in the US and in the parent country. This means a forgery would not only have to be visually accurate, but also have to include a false reference including a photo who looks like the person, as well as a clean criminal record.

Re:28 countries exempt

[UberGeeb]

Umm, perhaps you should go study statistics. 0.1% chance for a false positive means 99.9% chance that a test _won't_ be a false positive. 440 passengers on a 747-200. 0.999^440 is about a 64% chance that no one on a fully loaded 747-200 will get a false positive, meaning a 46% chance that someone will. Rounding that to 50% is probably as accurate as the original 0.1% number is, given it's in a news article.

Re:28 countries exempt

[scherrey]

re: Illegal immigrants? What does that have to do with terrorism, because that's the excuse used to justify all this shit.

Uh gee - remember Sept 11th? Illegals flying into the twin towers and the Pentagon and a field in PA? Murdered thousands? Ring a bell? Definitely have a need to watch out for who is coming into the country. Unfortunately while we happily go along violating our own human rights, we don't have the will to concentrate our efforts and resources on those most likely to be terrorists.

Now, of course, fingerprinting isn't going to catch terrorists and I believe that no one should have to give up biometric info without being formally charged with a crime by a grand jury. 4th and 5th ammendments should apply to everyone on American territory.

Even if we waste every muslim terrorist on Earth, if we keep treating our Constitution this way we will have done to ourselves what the terrorists could never accomplish on their own.

Re:28 countries exempt

[twofidyKidd]

The big issue is not whether its a good idea to protect our borders, its whether or not they are being effectively protected at the possible expense of our civil liberties. Seems to me that if you have a machine which utilizes a database often used by law enforcement, then it's possible that it's only a matter of time before they start using it to stop people that aren't terrorists. You don't even have to be in trouble with the law at the time, you just have to show up on the radar, and suddenly you're being harrased about your Disney World vacation.

Then there's the secondary issue of the machine's level of inaccuracy. If you do any travelling at all via airline, there's a possibility that you might get flagged as a terrorist, and if you're a frequent traveller, then you have an even better chance of flagged. Small price to pay for the security you might say. Well how exactly would you feel if they stopped someone in your family, told them, "We think you're a terrorist, you're coming with us, and we're going to keep you in this room until we think otherwise, your rights, and your lawyer be damned."

You're right, we must do something, because it's better than nothing, but if the terror level is at Orange even with all this security, then it's probably not very good security. Why as a taxpayer am I paying for all this expensive, ineffective security?

Lastly, it still doesn't change the fact that a terrorist could land in Saskatchewan, rent a car to the border, take a stroll into the states, hop on a bus to some metropolitan area, and set off the dirty bomb in the briefcase he was carrying all that time. And when that happens (God forbid that it does), I'm going to be pissed as hell that I'm sitting in a cell at an airport because some $20 million plus in tax money decided that I was the real threat.

Re:28 countries exempt

[mr100percent]

If the INS had done its job, and deported them in the proper fashion, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If the FBI had properly done its job (as Bush alleges, shifting the blame from him), 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If Israel had handed over Mossad data to the US, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

All these new laws wouldn't change 9/11. Stronger cockpit doors can.

Re:28 countries exempt

[Kaboom13]

Yeah cause Bush was so responsible, considering he was sworn into office on January 20th of that year. That early into the administration all the previous administration's methods were still in place. The job of preventing the World Trade Center attacks fell on the CLinton administration. They knew there were terrorists out there gunning for the U.S., and issued some travel advisiories etc. They did nothing to beef up security. And in the end, it's neither Clinton nor Bush's fault. It's the terrorist's fault. In hindsight it's easy to say we could have stopped them. But the reality of the issue is that the people responsible were the men who woke up that morning with the intention of hijacking planes and killing as many people as they could.

Re:28 countries exempt

[Malcontent]

"Uhm, the security alert being Orange is the system in action, not a failure of a system. When's the last time you saw a terrorist attack on American soil? 9/11/01? Well, then, the system's working as far as anyone can measure."

Yes but you are attributing this effect to the wrong cause. You see on 9/11 I found a weird shaped coin on the street. I then said to myself "as long as I have this coin in my pocket no further terrorist attacks will occur on US soil". As you well know since that time there have been no attacks on US soil so it's working as far as anyone can measure.

I think it's good.

[ActionPlant]

I don't think this is a problem. I see how some people think this might be an invasion of privacy, and hey, if they put this thing in random public places, especially without letting us know, yes I'd be upset. But this is in AIRPORTS. You're required to check in before you ever get on the plane anyway. I think it's just another means of making sure that people who are on these planes really are who they say they are. That can't be a bad thing.

Damon,

Re:I think it's good.

[LX.onesizebigger]

For a government to verify identity by means of passport examination is one thing. To keep personal, biometric data on file, however, is entirely different and something that most governments should not consider doing to their own citizens. Should other countries really accept that the U.S. government has more data on their citizens than those other countries themselves?

No invasion of privacy? Bull! If you really think so, please go down to your local precinct and volunteer to have your fingerprint taken so that you may be examined as a potential suspect in criminal investigations.

Making sure people who are on the planes are who they say they are -- bull! Against what database will this be verified? It's trying to please the public by making sure they can see the government keeps tabs on "those damn foreigners".

Re:I think it's good.

[gorbachev]

So...what are you going to say when they extend this program to include US citizens/residents?

It's going to come...

What are you going to say when foreign countries are all going to start doing this to all foreigners entering their countries?

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill hypocricy

Re:I think it's good.

[ZPO]

Like another respondent my fingerprints have already been volutarily given the the USMC, NCIS, SAPD, DIS, and about 5-6 other agencies I have no clear recollection of at the present time.

If you want to get in your personal vehicle, drive across several state lines, pay cash all the way, never stay in a hotel, and not have the capability to endanger anyone else as a part of that travel (other than lousy driving) then please feel free to do so.

If, on the other hand, you want to get on an airplane for a domestic flight be prepared for some screening. Why? Because you are not getting on a public air carrier with a bunch of other people.

By the same token if you're flying internationally then be prepared to furnish your identity on entrance/exit from all countries along the route. Its just the way it is in the real world.

....And?

[OtakuHawk]

So they have my fingerprint... Are they taking names and other info, or are they just going to have a database full of 5 billion fingerprint entries, but no names?

Easy to bypass.

[DAldredge]

All they have to do is walk across the damn borders (north or south).

next up... Verichip

[segment]

Wired magazine
02:00 AM Oct. 23, 2002 PDT

A surprise decision by the Food and Drug Administration permits the use of implantable ID chips in humans, despite an FDA investigator's recent public reservations about the devices.

The FDA sent chip manufacturer Applied Digital Solutions a letter stating that the agency would not regulate the VeriChip if it was used for "security, financial and personal identification or safety applications," ADS said Tuesday.

But the FDA has not determined whether the controversial chip can be used for medical purposes, including linking to medical databases, the company added...

Supposedly, (supposedly) DoD was looking into this as a replacement for military dogtags, and the BOP (Bureau of Prisons) was supposedly looking into it. Now sounds far fetched but according to the companies press releases: September 29, 2003 - Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSX), an advanced technology development company, today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, VeriChip Corporation, has retained the services of Stanley "Stan" L. Reid, a longtime technology industry executive and former congressional aide with extensive experience and wide contacts in Washington, D.C., to market VeriChip(TM) secure identification solutions to federal agencies.

...

Since 1996, Mr. Reid has served as president of Strategic Sciences, a Washington, D.C.-area consulting firm that specializes in marketing advanced technologies to the federal government. Mr. Reid has particular expertise in selling new, introductory technologies to government agencies, including the Departments of Defense (DoD), Energy (DoE) and State, as well as the agencies that have been incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security. (source)

Just think if they decided to do away with Social Security, or made this a standard for newer borns a-la vaccinations... Oh well that's why I'm glad I support the war on terror

Orwellian...

[highwaytohell]

Well the US Govt has a stance of trust nobody, my question is whats going to stop a guy with three suitcases full of plastic explosives walking into an Airport and making a crater out of it. Fingerprints arent gonna help much then. All these security measures are just put in place to make the people feel safe, however a plane could come from a foreign country which doesnt have or cant afford to implement this technology. Osama is still to be caught, intelligence has done nothing, and you dont hear of any new breaks in locating him. All we see is his head on Al Jazeera threatening to eradicate the infidels. When Sept 11 occured, no one knew who these guys were, they could have been on the plane just as easily with the fingerprint technology implemented then. The real threat is knowing who your enemy is. All we have is one face, we dont have his many followers. This could just lead to a witch hunt of massive proportions

Re:What a terrible thing

[Goldberg's Pants]

If all this nonsense actually DID increase security, then fair play. But it doesn't. From your statement you appear to believe that yet another privacy rape at the airport, in a climate where women have been forced to empty baby bottles because they might contain weapons, is worth it, do you? Would that be correct? It's all in the interests of national security...

Okay, then, over Christmas, the Bush regime (Heil Dubya!) raised the terror alert etc... saying an attack was likely.

Now let's see here, they claim this, which, to me, means ALL these new security measures have been a waste of time, effort and money, and done nothing other than strip American's of more and more of their rights. If there's a "clear and present danger" of an attack, the administration is admitting that all this nonsense at airports is rubbish because it has not stopped the potential for attacks.

In short: All this security at the airport is like the old adage.

"This rock in my hand keeps away all the lions."
"But there are no lions here."
"Exactly."

Let's look at it this way and assume the "threat" is real. The fingerprint system is ONLY as good as the intelligence it's received. If Joe Terrorist goes through and has never been fingerprinted before... Well woop de doo, when he flies a plane into a building, at least we'll know what his fingers looked like before they burnt up in the wreckage.

It's a useless security measure.

Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[AndroidCat]

Brazil treads on US fingers (I out-sourced it to an Indian site. :^)

Washington has been upset by Brazil's tit-for-tat reaction to the US-VISIT system that went into force yesterday with digital technology after a year of preparation. US travellers have complained of up to nine-hour delays at Rio de Janeiro airport where Brazilian immigration authorities, only told of the order last week, are using inkpads and paper.

Well gee, travellers upset by security measures, imagine that! (Inkpads and paper sound like non-security.) Looks like the Brazilian governement as a whole is undecided about this, "not foreign policy".

Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[Jungle guy]

I am Brazilian, and all I can say is that I feel embarrassed by this. The fingerprinting on American airports is an overreaction and a sign of paranoia, but at least there is some justification - less than 3 years ago hundreds of lives were lost in an act of terrorism. The Brazilian fingerprinting of American citizens is simply a payback, and completely childish.

To make mater worse, it was decided by a judge from a small state. The government, and not the courts, should decide on matters of international relations, and so I think this absurd will not go on for a long time. Even so, the Brazilian authorities are working very hard to look stupid, surpassing the American government.

Re:Clever device

[JanneM]

Problem is, faking a fingerprint - even when checking for pulse and body heat - is not all that difficult. Bad Guys(tm) will do so if needed. And they will of course preferentially use someone else's print (which again is quite doable to obtain). Then what do you do? Passwords, PIN codes and social security numbers can be changed if you've lost them or is a victim of identity theft. But how do you change your fingerprint?

I hope they wash their hands.

[binarybum]

This sounds like a place to rub a little anthrax.. well except for the fact that it would be targeting non-US citizens.
Seriously though, how many people will touch this same couple of cm of space within the same day, one right after another. I hope they have considered a way to keep this surface sterile - perhaps a UV backlight or something. Otherwise this sounds like an international virus hub.

What problem does it solve?

[nuggz]

IIRC They were travelling under valid documentation.

Knowing who is on the plane or in the country would not have prevented September 11. They didn't know who was going to hijack a plane.

The scary part is focusing on foreigners isn't going to solve the problems. They end up harassing innocent people, and causing lots of bad will, but doesn't make it safer for anyone.

I can think of a few recent issues that really shocked & upset the US.
9/11
Columbine
Unabomber
Oklahoma city
The Sniper

Hmm, looks like picking on foreigners might not be the most effective way to decrease terrorism.

Re:What a terrible thing

[Homology]

what? we shouldent even try to do anything to protect ourselves?

Is this REALLY about protection of US citizens? Then why does the current administration act the way it does, if this is the goal? I sure don't feel more secure, rather the opposite.

From Sorrows of Empire: An Interview we see that the administration is undermining security :

We are without question in greater danger of terrorist attacks today than we were on September 11 two years ago. Afghanistan has descended into an anarchy comparable to that which prevailed before the rise of the ruthless but religiously motivated Taliban.

And the effects are not one might like :

The United States will feel the blowback from this ill-advised and poorly prepared military adventure for decades. The war in Iraq has already had the unintended consequences of seriously fracturing the Western democratic alliance; eliminating any potentiality for British leadership of the European Union; grievously weakening international law, including the Charter of the United Nations; and destroying the credibility of the president, vice president, secretary of state, and other officials as a result of their lying to the international community and the American people.

yes it's invasive, yes it tacks on an additional 15 seconds, no we don't care if you don't like it

Oh yeah, the administration sendt that message too:

Most important, the unsanctioned military assault on Iraq communicated to the world that the United States was unwilling to seek a modus vivendi with Islamic nations and was therefore an appropriate, even necessary, target for further terrorist attacks.

DNA is VERY different

[Chuck Chunder]

A fingerprint is just a fingerprint. It is, essentialy, just a fact with no meaning. The fingerprint itself holds no information about who the fingerprint belongs to, it's just a token.

DNA on the other hand holds a load of information in and of itself.

Re:I just got printed ...

[Scrameustache]

do I mind? Not really, after all, I'm not a terrorist!

Neither am I, but you know what else I'm not? A convict.
So long as the states are figerprinting and taking mugshots, I'm not setting foot there. Plenty other countries to visit.

See, here's the problem

[GuyMannDude]

OMG, you're right! Well, we might as well do nothing then, rather than take incremental steps to make things that much harder for people to slip through. After all, you wouldn't design a computer network with more than one level of security, why try to protect your borders that way?

If you re-read my post you'll see there are TWO parts to what I was saying. The first is that the system will not catch 100% of terrorists. In fact if some nerd like myself can see a flaw within 5 minutes, I'm sure that the actual effectiveness with be considerably less than 100%.

The second part of my post is prefaced with the words "On a related note" meaning that you are supposed to consider this in conjunction with the first point. The second point is that there WILL be false positives. Some innocents are going to get labeled as terrorists. And that's not too much fun for whoever gets the unlucky draw.

This pervasive "well, it's better than nothing!" mindset that I see so much of these days regarding our counter-terror efforts really spooks me. It sounds as though you're perfectly happy to disregard all those false positives as no big deal or, perhaps, an acceptable cost for some feeling of safety. In designing a system, an engineer will look carefully at the trade off of Pcc (probability of correct classification) versus Pfa (false alarms). Then it comes down to a judgement call, of course. What tradeoff are you willing to live with. The purpose of my original post was to ask if anyone has any feeling for what those numbers are! If we don't, then we're just doing a bunch of bullshit to make ourselves feel good.

And, personally, I won't be feeling too good about sending innocent people to Gitmo.

GMD

Re:What a terrible thing

[Lochin Rabbar]

Since there hasn't been a repeat of 9/11, it seems like the security precautions are working.

There are no elephants on my lawn, I guess it must be because the pepper I put down every night keeps them away.

Exempt doesn't mean "Exempt"

[Ironix]

I live in Canada, which is one of the "exempt" countries, but this exemption hasn't stopped the U.S. from fingerprinting and photographing Canadians of Persian descent.

Basically this exemption is for white people of European descent in the end...

I won't bother mentioning the frightening parallels this brings to mind...

Here's why.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Does anyone recall the little fact that none of the September 11 hijackers traveled under a false identity?

The point is not to pick out people who are traveling under false papers, the point is to build a database of foreign nationals. 28 countries are exempt only because the United States could not diplomatically get away with insulting these exempt countries this way. The truth is that if GWB could get away with doing this for US citizens as well, he would. It's all about control.

Re:Here's why.

[__aatgod8309]

If you want security, you first come up with a secure system.

It looks like many (if not all) of the systems now in place in the US are designed to make it easy for any 'security' to be bypassed, due to poorly designed systems, lack-lustre and uneven implementations, underperforming hardware, and a generally false sense of safety due to the flaws i've just mentioned.

I'd go so far as to say that the US govt is doing more to promote fear in the population than the terrorists do, after which they erode the civil rights of the (undereducated) general population whilst claiming 'We're protecting you'.

Re:Here's why.

[radish]

As for the 28 countries, I suspect these countries share fingerprint data with the US already

I'm british, therefore a citizen of one of the magic 28 countries. The UK government doesn't feel a need to fingerprint me. They have no biometric records on me to share with anyone. However, the US government has decided that they need a fingerprint from me, regardless of the fact that I hold a valid visa, have passed a number of vetting procedures and have no criminal record. So I got zapped at immigration. Yes I could have refused and been sent back on the next plane (after what I'm sure would have been a really nice interview) but seeing as I live here in NYC that's not a very realistic option. As a resident of the US I don't feel one bit safer knowing these checks are in place - they're utterly meaningless unless you are preparing for a complete 1984 style total awarness police state. Which leads me to believe that is exactly what is being planned. Which in turn leads me to feel a lot less comfortable about being here. So maybe I should have refused...

Re:What a terrible thing

[Strudelkugel]

We are without question in greater danger of terrorist attacks today than we were on September 11 two years ago. Afghanistan has descended into an anarchy comparable to that which prevailed before the rise of the ruthless but religiously motivated Taliban.

Are they describing the country that just had constitutional convention? The one that just agreed upon a constitution?

The United States will feel the blowback from this ill-advised and poorly prepared military adventure for decades. The war in Iraq has already had the unintended consequences of seriously fracturing the Western democratic alliance; eliminating any potentiality for British leadership of the European Union; grievously weakening international law, including the Charter of the United Nations; and destroying the credibility of the president, vice president, secretary of state, and other officials as a result of their lying to the international community and the American people.

Blowback? Are they considering the fact that Libya has invited in inspectors to verify the end of their WMD programs blowback? Notice that N. Korea has invited some "independent" inspectors to have a look at Yong-byon. What about the Saudi crack-down on Al Qaeda in that country? All of this is bad? As for the EU, they can't even keep to the terms of their own agreements. As for the UN, note that it is the organization that passed 1441, as well as many other sanctions against the regime of Saddam. France and Russia were quite happy with Oil-for-Food program though, given that they got to skim off so much in "Administrative" fees, so one might question who was risking credibility.

Don't get me wrong, war is a terrible thing, and one can only regret the loss of innocent life and destruction. The U.S., however, didn't start this conflict. It would be insanity to wait for the totally compromised UN to solve the problem for us, after the enemy announced his intention to attack us, and did so, several times.

Am I the only one?

[utlemming]

Am I the only one that really does not care or see the controvery hear? I guess my point is if you have such a problem being finger-printed on the way in then don't come. The only thing that I am annoyed with is how come everyone doesn't get finger printed and photographed. If you get a Texas DL you get finger printed and photograhped. The US should be allowed to track people as they come and leave the US. It is the right of the country to deny and admit people into the United States and knowing who is in the country is not a big deal. For the most part the United States Government knows about 99.9% of the polulace from tax records and drivers licenses. It is not so much of a leap nor an extreme injustice to know about the aliens visiting. Just because the US is going to start to track those visiting, and thereby knowing who they are, is no more intrusive than your local DMV, the IRS, Social Security Admin, et al, knowing about you.

Then the other thing that is blowing my mind is how come Brazil is having such a problem with this. I can understand that they feel a little singled out, but this reciprosity seems a little extreme. It is not like the US is singling out Brazilians only -- just those countries were we have the Visa-waiver program in effect.

This is seriously a non-issue.

Re:What a terrible thing

[Scrameustache]

Afghanistan has descended into an anarchy comparable to that which prevailed before the rise of the ruthless but religiously motivated Taliban.

Are they describing the country that just had constitutional convention? The one that just agreed upon a constitution?

The Taliban are gaining territory again, there are large parts of the country that are still under their controll.

The USSR fought the talibans for years before giving up and leaving them the country (back when the US called them freedom fighters...go rent Rambo III and that Timothy Dalton James Bond...Liscense to Kill I think), and the US bombed the shit out of them and then moved on to bomb the shit out of Irak...

The U.S., however, didn't start this conflict.

List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-02

Re:First impression of the US...

[BSDevil]

You forgot about the one asking if you were a Nazi.

Anyways, the first time I saw that form I too was curious, so I asked a lawyer-friend about the rationale of asking questions that everyone will say no to. Apparently, that's the idea. You say no, and then sign the dotted line saying that everything is true, under penalty of arrest and perjury. So if you happen to be a terrorist or spy, they can pick you up on lying on your immigration form, and then get more time to get a real case. It also makes it much easier to deport you.

Remember Al Capone: he may have been famous for the Mob, but he got nailed for tax evasion.

joke's on us

[Doc Ruby]

These "homeland security" measures that Bush and Ridge are saddling us with are a giant conjob. I travel around NYC, and they've reduced the NYPD to a bunch of overtime crossing guards. If I were sick enough to want to sabotage something big enough to get on TV, it would be really easy. The airports are just as porous. Meanwhile, the Sunday before New Year's Eve, somebody buzzed their small plane around the Statue of Liberty ( under a mile from the hole where the World Trade Center stood) for several minutes before the FAA even warned them away from that closed airspace. During a Christmas/New Year week of steady Orange Alert. Any heads roll? Any tightening of the security? Found any "evil doers"? No. This is a scam to keep us scared, obedient, and ignorant of the very real changes the Feds are pulling on us.

If you want to know why, just think about all those military contractors that Bush was going to hook up with "missile defense shield" contracts ($100s of billions - trillions). After the WTC planebombings, they couldn't convince anyone the #1 threat was missiles. So they turned their proposals and whitepapers into "TerrorWar" marketing and "Iraqmire" lobbying. Do you think all that Pentagon biz development just went away? They need that money! And they're getting it. But they don't have actual TerrorWar products, so they're just keeping up the smokescreens and scapegoats while they retool. By the time we catch on and get tired of just rounding up foreign looking people, their systematic abuse of every possible fringe group will probably have produced actual nuts who will follow Osama bin Laden's career highlight. Then the contractors will be able to say "I warned you", and keep business rolling. Unless we start calling them on it, and stop playing along by watching their TerrorTV and taking them seriously.

Re:How about....

[Charlotte]

"Security"? How's that going to help? You just may be able to prevent a single person from being murdered by erecting walls around them (read: the president) but how are you going to protect an entire country?

Don't you see that something else is wrong here? For one, maybe the US shouldn't be training terrorists like Osama Bin laden, the world would already be safer then.

So stop nagging about security, get your head out of your ass, and start thinking about why this trrorism is taking place.. It's just a symptom of a bigger issue and digging trenches or shutting your eyes to reality (and calling it 'security') is not going to help.

What we need is open minds to face the world of tomorrow. Not a reactionary, "we are better than the rest so it's okay for us to kill other people" and then expect that everyone will like you for it.

I won't call you a moron because I don't want to offend real morons.

Cold War Security (Europe)v. WWIII Security(today)

[Sean Clifford]

I grew up during the Cold War and my family was deployed in Europe (pre-NATO Spain con mucho anti-NATO, anti-American, pro-Communist sentiment) during Reagan's first administration. On the way to the base schools, we passed through two checkpoints with identity checks by machinegun toting jackoffs (Spanish at the 1st, American at the 2nd) and mirrors run under the bus (1st, sometimes both), often dogs through it for good measure (only 2nd). They said they were looking for 'drugs' but we knew they were looking out for bombs.

There were several terrorist incidents when we were stationed overseas - I witnessed one, my family avoided one thanks to our chronically late mother (Thanks, Mom!), and some escaped Basque nationalists stole our car (that was not fun). Three in three years if you discount the occassional ass-beating by local teens who hated Americans (well, us anyway), a riot (my bad), and the consequences of unwise activities by myself and fellow American teens (often misguided patriotism or plain mischief).

Nevertheless, the other 99.5% of the time we were as safe and sound as bugs in a rug, living in a great country with kind and friendly people, immersed in a rich culture, surrounded by millennia of history, and had a fantastic time. Those are the times that I remember and cherish - going to the Prado, walking through El Escorial, marveling at the Valley of the Fallen, visiting the tombs of Saints, roaming through ancient castles, seeing the Hanging Gardens, touching Queen Isabella's jewelry box (it was about the size of my Shuttle XPC), meeting Queen Sofia...and tons more great experiences.

Even at the height of tensions between American military folks and Spanish civilians (during the biological warfare accident/linseed oil poisoning of olive oil) we - the Americans - were never subject to the invasive 'security checks' foreign visitors experience coming to the United States.

Fast forward exactly 20 years from January of 1984 (when we settled into our new stateside duty station)...

The Patriot Act I and II, fingerprint scanning, CAP fighter and Apache patrols over American cities, "orange" terrorist alerts, "war on terrorism" with ever-shifting definitions of "terrorist", jailing of American citizens without charge for years, propoganda in American media ---

After one terrorist incident in three years (albeit a terrible one) wrecking the peaceful tranquility of the nation's daily domestic tragedies, America is moving toward a police state. Even as hopping Spain was with machinegun toting Spanish military dudes and several terrorist incidents (bombings, shootings, mass poisonings), 99.5% of the time everything was cool and there wasn't nearly the level of hysterical anti-democratic overreaction we've seen here in the United States. Nobody got on TV to talk about how terribly vulnerable to terrorism we were; everyone knew it. Nobody went out to fingerprint, track, and data-mine everyone in the world - you just needed proper ID; match face to picture and signature to signature.

All the security in the world isn't going to stop terrorism; just ask Israel - it probably has the best-trained and equipped security forces on the face of the planet. By their own figures they stop 90% of suicide bombers, but nobody can stop them all. The Palestinian resistance has demonstrated its capability to carry out a 'successful' bombing on a daily basis - killing a dozen or more civilians and wounding scores - terrorizing millions.

Even if we could wall up everything, put cops on every street corner, monitor and surveille whoever we wished - we cannot stop terrorism, not without addressing the root cause that motivates people to kill themselves and a bunch of people. And I'm not talking religion here.

I'm talking a sane foreign policy that doesn't make enemies out of everyone we walk over or steal from to 'protect our national interests' - or enemies of the 'friends and allies' with whom we used to divvy up the spoils.

Instead, we need a policy that simultaneously roots out genuine terrorists while helping those who have a legitimate beef with us for having trampled all over them. We need to focus on reducing the environment that breeds terrorists and terrorism, not fueling it.

A European & African perspective

[kmichels]

Looking at all this ruckus about fingerprinter etc from a European (UK) perspective, and having spent 30 years of my life before that in South Africa, I think that all these measures are nothing more than a Dog & Pony show: smoke and mirrors . ..

In the bad old days of South African Apartheid, the white government legislated all kinds of things, pumped millions into the security forces, and spent huge chunks of the budget on trying to prevent attacks by "terrorists" from the banned liberation organisations such as the ANC and PAC. What good did that do? Sweet blue blow-all. All it did was challenge those organisations to be more creative about infiltrating their cadre's and hitmen & women into society, and the bombings continued, as did the agitation. Leaders of these organisations were identified and incarcerated, to no avail. It just didn't work, despite the fact that it turned the country into a police state.

Likewise, there is SBFA that the American administration can do to prevent determined terrorists from getting into the country and committing acts of terrorism - nothing at all. Personally, if I were an American citizen, I'd be protesting about the pointless waste of my tax dollars.

The only way the USA can make itself less of a target, is to change its arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world: realise that not everyone wants to live like an average American, and not everyone defines freedom and democracy in the same way as the USA does. In the same way that the freedom movements in South Africa were rebelling against the arrogant tyrany of the white government, who considered its world-view to be normative, there are nations out there who see the USA's attitude in much the same light.

I don't in any way condone the use of violence as a means of protest, and what happenned on 911 was just not on, not for any reason, but once again drawing a parallel with what happened in apartheid South Africa: put yourself in the shoes of the average oppressed black man for just a moment. Your back is to the wall: there's no more room for manuever. What option do you have but to resort to violence? Especially if that is all the government understands?

In this respect the USA (and Tony Blah) is supremely guilty: the WMD ruse was just an excuse to use an option that should have been an absolute last resort. What options do those nations have where the USA and other western nations have interfered but to resort to violence?

Oh dear.

[Khamura]

Didn't they know about how easy it is to fool fingerprint systems?