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

[1029]

What I really like is Brazil's answer to this: they are now stopping and fingerprinting and photographing all US visitors. Tit-for-tat, the way it should be. And it wouldn't at all stop me from visting Brazil, just as it probably won't stop many Brazilians from coming here.

Re:28 countries exempt

[plj]

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.

I'm not perfectly sure, however - please correct if I'm wrong.

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

[LX.onesizebigger]

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

Re:28 countries exempt

[no soup for you]

But those 28 countries must begin using digital passports in a couple of months. And if they don't, then they'll be subject to these same rules.

Re:28 countries exempt

[jorlando]

It's being used here just to pressure the Brazilian Foreign Relationships Dept to act on behalf of Brazilians travelling to US, so they can be included in the list of citizens that don't need previous identification.

That law will probably be overruled in the next few days, since it wasn't issued by the Brazilian Supreme Court (don't ask... regional courts can issue directives that are valid for all country, and that can be overruled in superior courts... you don't want to understand the Brazilian legal system, believe me...)

The federal government is moving against it and also the State of Rio de Janeiro, since it can have an impact in the tourists flow, since the fingerprinting here is being done manually (cardboards were you put your fingerprint)

The relationship with foreign citizens here is based on reciprocity: i.e., the treatment applied is the same that a given country apply to Brazilian citizens. Eg. frenchs, englishes, portugueses don't need visas to come here, since their countries don't ask for visas from us. Americans need visas since they require visas from us.

That's why the only citizens asked for fingerprinting are the americans: is the only country asking that kind of identification from us.

I agree with this, since is the only way to pressure both governments (US and Brazil) to find some alternative.

I also agree that the law was passed hastily, without giving time to the Brazilian federal Police to acquire a more modern equipment (digital fingerprinting is available here) and allocate more personal to do the job, so american tourists are waiting loooooong time to be identified. It is nasty, but is not personal...

Re:28 countries exempt

[bishop32x]

the NYT article a couple days ago said less than .01 percent error, although as the database size increases the number of bad fingerprints on record will probably increase to, probably not leading to false-positives, just false-negatives.

%error*24million vistitors per year

.0001*240000000=2400

mistakes each year, assuming that the database is 100% correct. note: I have know Idea where these numbers actully came from, probably the manufacturer,not the most unbiased source.

Re:28 countries exempt

[stripmarkup]

Zacarias Moussaoui, supposedly involved in 9/11, is a French citizen. Richard Reid, the "Shoe bomber" on an AA flight, is British. There must be more where those came from. All countries should be fingerprinted if this is to be an effective measure.

Re:28 countries exempt

[corbettw]

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.

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?

Afterall, all the terrorists have to do is get a kayak made of radar absorbing material, paddle it across the Atlantic ocean, then scuba the last 100 miles under 10 fathoms of water, before swimming up the Chesapeake and exploding a nuclear suitcase bomb a few miles from the Capitol. So there's no sense wasting our time with security. Hell, let's just put box cutters in every airline meal and call it a day.

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

[John Harrison]

This is reciprocity for reciprocity's sake and nothing more. Even if a digital fingerprint system was deployed (at huge cost) what would they be comparing the fingerprints against? Who will pay for a big fat AFIS system? Even a small one is expensive.

Which actually raises a good question. What is the US comparing fingerprints against? Do we have terrorist fingerprints on file? I would guess that we don't have too many.

While I love Brazil (lived there for two years) I think this policy of knee-jerk reciprocity is a bit immature. Brazil needs to realize that people visiting the USA from Brazil are far more likely to simply make their visit permanent (illegally) than people visiting Brazil from the USA. Once that situation has changed then we can start talking about lifting visa requirements. Somehow I don't think that Lula is going to make much progress on the matter, but I wish him the best of luck.

Re:28 countries exempt

[Nexus Seven]

How would fingerprinting on arrival have helped?

His intention was to destroy the plane before it arrived at its destination.

Re:28 countries exempt

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the story of the Department of Homeland Security. It seems like they're doing everything possible to destroy rights and freedoms for americans and visitors to the US while making sure they improve actual safety as little as possible.

They constantly parade around the threat of terrorists even though there doesn't seem to be a threat. The US is at an Orange alert now. Why? They offer no information on why they elevate the level. It seems to just be to scare people and make themselves seem important.

After 9/11 the US introduced a comprehensive sky marshall program. Last year, Homeland Security introduced airport screening programs that are much more invasive, really screwed over people from visa waiver countries, and to pay for it cut the sky marshall program way back. They even admitted at the time the sky marshall program would have prevented 9/11 while the new program would not have.

The US is rapidly becoming the sort of police state their propaganda claimed russia was like during the coldwar. Unfortunately, they have the technology to do it for real now.

The greatest threat facing the US now isn't the terrorists, it's their own homeland security. 3,000 people is not a hugh death toll. Hitler killed double that on average every single day for 5 years. It's also a small drop in the bucket compared to the number of americans killed in car accidents. But holding 300,000,000 hostage is a major crime against humanity. Hopefully you'll be smart enough to vote out dubya this year and the new president will have the brains to save the country.

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

[bradtes]

It's called identity theft.

As for the photograph, many of us USians know just how little a state issued ID photo has to look like its carrier...

Re:28 countries exempt

[CrowScape]

I believe the idea is that next year visas will come with a computer chip containing biometric data, sorta like an RFID tag. If so, that would make scanning the fingerprint registered to the visa increadibly easy. The process then would hopefully be so quick that even re-entries wouldn't be inconvieninced by it. Simply place your thumb on the scanner while passing under an I-Pass like sensor and you're off.

Re:28 countries exempt

[Pave Low]

Does anyone recall the little fact that none of the September 11 hijackers carried handguns or bombs?

Oh well, let's tear down the metal detectors and luggage scanners then.

Re:28 countries exempt

[the gnat]

It's worse than that. Apparently the administration had already been made aware that two of them were al Qaeda members, roughly two weeks before the attack, and was too fucking stupid to do anything about it. Hence the current stonewalling against the independent commission; Rove is probably sweating bullets thinking about how the Democrats will spin intelligence failures in the campaign.

The response from the right, of course, has been to blame Clinton again.

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

[lyphorm]

He's saying that for every two 747s, there will be one false positive. Assuming that a 747 carries about 500 passengers, that's 1 in 1000 or 0.1%.

In other words, if a full 747 lands, there's a roughly 50-50 chance that there will be a false positive found.

Not 50% of the passengers will come up false positive. 1 person out of 2 planes. That's a 50% chance per plane of finding a single false positive.

Get it?

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

[UberGeeb]

actually, every person on that jet could get a false positive. One person getting a false positive doesn't exempt any of the others from getting one as well. This is basic dice probability statistics, with a 1000-sided die.

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

[radish]

No they dont. I have never been printed in my life until I arrived at JFK the other day. Ergo, in terms of identifying me, the check was entirely pointless.

Re:28 countries exempt

[radish]

Also not true. My (UK) passport is machine readable sure, but there's no extra data on there. No country in europe is planning (in the near future) to reissue all passports with encoded biometric data. Some people are talking about such things, but they're many years away from happening.

Re:28 countries exempt

[notAyank]

I watched a discussion on News Hour with Jim Lehrer and the points made about this were:

1. The budget for starting this program was between 300 - 400 Million US (i forget the exact figure), but the estimated budget required to make it effective was something like 20 Billion. The question was raised as th where this money was going to come from.

2. There were concerns, as the parent points out, that although the US-VISIT system would be collecting a lot of information on visitors to the US that is currently getting lost, left unprocessed or wildly innacurate, the intelligence databases that the data is being compared to are not up to scratch. Apparently far greater cooperation from the intelligence agencies is required to make this thing work.

3. The system would be good for identifying people who had overstayed their visas or had been deported in the past, but would also penalise people who had overstayed with good reason, for example people who could not leave the country due to illness or some other valid reason. So if you could not take your flight because of an ear infection, you would be in danger of not being allowed back into the country on your next visit.

Re:28 countries exempt

[cehardin]

I googled and found no references to the *administration* being aware that two of the hijackers were al Qaeda. I did find lot's of reports about the *CIA* knowing this, but apparently did not pass the information on to the FBI or anyone else who could have done something to perhaps prevent 9/11. (These news reports came out at around July, 2002).

When we read about the things we have to remember that hindsight is 20/20. Sure, we can link these two possible alQaeda members to 9/11 now, *after the fact*, but it probably was not clear at all what these suspected al Qaeda members where doing at the time.

Don't forget the key word here: "Suspected". Back then the FBI was pretty limited on what it could do about a "suspected al Qaeda member". Those words did not have the same impact then as they do today.

Re:28 countries exempt

[yourmom16]

They were issued visas actually, thus they were not illegal immigrants.

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.

Re:28 countries exempt

[Monkelectric]

Programs like this are corporate welfare handed out to large Bush campaign contributors. There's no other possible explination. Almost 30 exempt countries? What sense does that make! None! Unless the real point never was to catch terrorists. And how would fingerprints catch terrorists anyways? No one can answer that question ... hmmmm ....

Re:28 countries exempt

[kruczkowski]

Read this below, note the date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021 .s tm

Re:28 countries exempt

[Mac Degger]

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe this isn't worth it? I mean, a lot less people get killed WORLDWIDE due to terrorism per YEAR than get killed in a single WEEK due to traffic accidents in the US alone.

When you look at numbers like that, doesn't it kind of put things into perspective?
Are you still so adamantly giving up your bill of rights, allowing your president to get away with sealing protesters (guys/galss/grandma's with placcards) into 'free speech zones' so the camera's don't see 'em (look this one up...chilling stuff indeed when you can arrest a grandma with a sign saying something against the current administration for standing in a crowd) and much more?
And what about the spending!? More than half the US' budget goes to defence and related activities...and that with you nation in debt, a depressed economy, illitaracy rampant, science graduates [who stay in the US] down, in other words a third world country economy...don't you think the money should be spent somewhere else?

Re:28 countries exempt

[Gonarat]

If Clinton is responsible for 09.11, then George H. W. Bush is responsible for the 1993 bombing of the WTC. After all, Clinton only took office less than 2 months before that happened.

Both of these attacks were rather low-tech - a fuel and ferilizer bomb in 1993, and taking over planes with box cutters in 2001. I'm all for increasing National Security as long as the Constitution is not violated. If this high-tech fingerprint system can be effective without compromising the Constitution, great. As soon as it crosses the line (they are only fingerprinting Foreigners now, but who's to say won't expand in the future), then it is no longer acceptable. If Ashcroft et al can trash the Constitution, then the Terrorists have won and the Republic is lost.

Re:28 countries exempt

[MKalus]

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.

Only problem was that all of these people held legal Visas and were already in the country.

The whole fingerprinting system makes as much sense as preventing people to stand in line to get to the toilet on an airplane does.

M.

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to gattaca !

If you want my fingerprint to fly...

[mikeophile]

Don't be mad when I offer the middle one.

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.

[LX.onesizebigger]

The FBI, DIS, OSI and Air Force has my prints. The ATF has it when I applied (and received) my FFL (Federal Firearms License). The sherrif has them from when I filled out (and received) my conceal to carry permit.

Good for you! I personally don't have the need or desire for lethal weapons likely to be used to commit crimes. All I'd like is to visit my American friends and see more of your beautiful country.

I think you are a bit too paranoid bub. I understand if you don't want your prints taken, well fine. Then don't join the military, or get an FFL, or a conceal to carry permit, or come to my country. Its your choice. But quit bitching about it, since it is NOT mandantory. No one is forced to come here.

Says Anonymous Coward. Anyone else see the irony of the situation here? Anyway, I will think long and hard before visiting the US again, even though I am from one of the 28 excluded countries, since customs and immigration seems to be ignoring their instructions at will and just fingerprint the hell out of everybody anyway. I visited relatives in what was at the time held as part of the Soviet Union with less invasion of my privacy back in the 80s. It's really sad to see such a beautiful country fall victim to such totalitarianism.

The reason I am "bitching" about it is that this is a highly unusual procedure conducted on foreign nationals merely for the fact that they are just that, and I hope more countries follow Brazil's excellent example. Perhaps we could also get American travellers to wear something... a little yellow star, say, with the word American printed on it, you know, just in case, just so we know who they are.

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?

Re:....And?

[Nutt]

I dont know about anyone else, but when I was young we all went on a "field trip" to the local jail and courthouse and had our fingerprints taken. Of course we all thought it was fun seeing where all the mean old people were kept but looking back I wouldn't be suprised if my prints wound up in a database somewhere..

Re:....And?

[radish]

Well there's this thing called a "passport". It has your name, and your DOB, and your photo and a bunch of other stuff. And they look at that at the same time they take your prints. So I think maybe yes, maybe they do record the name against it. Whaddya reckon?

What next ?

[noelo]

Anal probes ?????

Re:What next ?

[core plexus]

Anal probes ?

For some people, that would be an incentive to travel more.

-cp-

President Bush to Liberate Alaska!

Lineup

[mhlandrydotnet]

Now, all we need to do is to have terrorists send us in a copy of their finger prints so we can keep em on file.

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

Re:next up... Verichip

[transient]

I'm under the impression that dog tags are required by the Geneva Convention. I don't think an implant like this would satisfy the requirement. But I could just be making this up.

Welcome to America

[psyconaut]

Please excuse our xenophobic and jingoistic tendancies. Ya'll have a nice day now!

-psy

A quick parody...

[TDScott]

The Department of Homeland Security put out a PDF leaflet about the program, which contained their normal, almost incomprehensible pictograms like those on ready.gov

I thought they needed some better, and funnier, subtitles.

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: Orwellian...

[Black Parrot]

> Just put them by the doors, and away from crowds, idealy they could set up security checkpoints outside of the terminals

The biggest crowds are at the security checkpoints. Your suggestion merely moves the target.

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.

Re:Meanwhile...

[JCCyC]

More: Brazilian authorities quickly altered the procedure from "get all 10 fingers" to "get thumb only" because in the USA they're taking thumb only. Now THAT is tit-for-tatness!

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:Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[iserlohn]

I'm not brazilian and I don't agree with your characterization. Tit for Tat is a viable long term strategy to enforce cooperation. There is nothing childish about it. You can't keep cooperating when your oppenent defects. Appeasement is a bad straegy (well, actually depends on the payoff matrix).

Sorry 'bout the random blurb, readying too much Axelrod lately.

Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[NaCl]

The Brazilian fingerprinting of American citizens is simply a payback, and completely childish

The main problem around this fingerprint thing is: respect. So, the US want to fingerprint all people from ALL countries? Fine! Instead of that the US make, like, uhm, 28 exceptions!

I'm brazilian and I'm not ashamed at all. Show us brazilians some respect, damn it!

To make mater worse, it was decided by a judge from a small state

I'm from a an even smaller state than that, how is this making me worse than someone from a big state?

Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[radish]

What? (a) Why do I care what Howard Dean thinks? (who is he anyway?). I think what I think (I agree it is pointless and a waste of time and money). (b) better safe than sorry? why not just close all the borders? Why not shoot non-us citizens on sight? They'd both help the war on terror. You might actually stop a terrorist that way.

The fingerprinting hardly takes any time whatsoever, and early reports are even showing that it speeds up the process because the guys who check you out don't have to worry that some of you are unidentified, since your already all verified... er' somethin' like that.


I don't think anyone cares about the delay. It was very quick. As all good privacy removing procedures should be. How would you feel if they decided that all citizens must be fingerprinted? If you're ok with that then fair enough, otherwise you're just being xenophobic. And as for using it as ID, that's pretty pointless. When I was fingerprinted at immigration the other day it was the first time in my life i'd been printed. So what exactly were they comparing it with? Nothing. They were taking it to build up a database of potentially useful data on foreign citizens. I'm sure they'll find something nefarious to do with it soon.

Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[CountBrass]

*IF* you're actually a Brazillian perhaps you should know your own country better before spewing forth.

Brazil has laws, passed by the national government, that Brazil treats foreign visitors the same way their nationals get treated by them. So the US starts fingerprinting Brazilians then the Brazilians start finger printing US visitors.

All the local court did was confirm that this law applied. They didn't "make it up" or anything silly like that.

Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of)

[aimansmith]

I have no problem with the reciprocity, and in fact I think that forcing Americans to be fingerprinted is a great way to give then just a little taste of what it's like on the other side. That being said, I really don't think it's a good example of reciprocity; at least the U.S. has the resources to implement this program and (we can only hope) make it at least semi-efficient so that people aren't sitting around forever in the airport. Brazil is attempting to throw it all together hodge-podge (fingerprints on cardboard? what are they doing with these fingerprint records? seriously...). As anyone who has ever dealt with Brazilian authorities can tell you, they are notoriously inefficient and corrupt. So, whilst Brazilians with valid passports/visas will probably have to go through some inconvenience and a blatant, undeserved invasion of privacy, at least they'll most likely be done with it soon enough. Americans entering Brazil will probably have a much tougher time of it on average. Of course, if Brazil really wants to reciprocate, they can just let _almost_ everybody through, but once in a while they can pick someone at random to be detained, strip-searched, probed, and interrogated by officials with guns yelling at them in Portuguese, then eventually sent back to the U.S. with no explanation. But that would probably really piss some people off, and Brazil doesn't have an "anti-terrorism" blanket excuse for that sort of thing....

Yep.

[nadavspi]

We got ours taken at the American Embassy in Israel when we were there a few weeks ago (were there to get a new visa stamp).
Anyone 14 or over is required to have their prints taken, and chcked every time they enter the US.
The article is right; it really didn't take that much longer than usual. As long as it doesn't slow the already crappy process to go through at 5 AM after a 12 hour flight, it doesn't really bother me.

Reminds me of the early days of Dehomag

[luckytroll]

Dehomag (the German branch of Hollerith - the ancestor of IBM) got its start assisting the Germans with a similar effort - using computing technology (punched cards) to track all kinds of things in the interest of security, efficiency, and thoroughness. They got their start automating the census, and wound up empowering governments with then unheard of levels of efficiency in attaining many of their goals, despite the changing nature of those goals.

Again we are seeing a watershed moment in the efficiency, security and thoroughness of states ability to enforce their policies. Lets hope that this time the population will gain a proportional increase in control over the agenda of the state.

The alternative will be no less than a repetition of history.

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?

Blame Canada!

[ergo98]

Who do we expect to protect our boarders for us? Canada?

Uh, no you shouldn't expect Canada to protect your borders for you, and the moral implication repeated constantly (such as your pathetic little sheep-like "oh wait") that we should is absolutely ludicrous. As a Canadian, I personally have no problem with the US crawling down into the basement, curling up into the fetal position and sucking its thumb -- It is your country, and as a visitor people simply have to accept each country's sovereign right to self-protection. Of course this measure would have done absolutely nothing to prevent 9/11, nor does it do anything to affect the hundreds of sleeper cells in the US, nor does it do anything but provide the illusion of safety for the ignorant (such as yourself). Of course this is from the same administration that is so bloody uninventive and unoriginal that they can only imagine that terrorist could only possibly conceive of hijacking airliners and smashing them into buildings -- until the terrorists put toxins in the water supply, at which point they'll then imagine that the world's terrorists are perpetually focused on putting toxins in water supplies...rinse and repeat.

Having said that, it is fascinating, though -- The United States currently hosts some 8 to 11 MILLION illegal aliens. The United States has rampant illegal weapons and drug trade. The United States Southern border has a guesstimated 6,000, uncaught, illegals crossing it every single day. Yeah, keep up the Canada jokes...You and Hillary Clinton can keep up the charade that we're the source of your security ills.

Re:Blame Canada!

[ergo98]

I wonder why Canada doesn't have an illegal alien problem

The point, that you so clearly missed, was that it's humorous that the poster made a weak little comment about Canada failing to protect it when there is half the population of Canada in illegal aliens living in the grand old US of A as we speak, and the Southern border is so pourous that it's a complete joke. Hell, for anyone with any resources and a couple of boats, the entire East and West coast are impossible to defend against (well unless you ban all maritime traffic -- strangely I wouldn't be surprized...).

However the general attempt at subtle disparaging humors me -- Canada has the highest legal migration of any Western nation per capita, and a massive backlog of applicants.

Re:Blame Canada!

[ergo98]

You're angry because the US is taking a fingerprint they already have, or could easily get digitally, and comparing it to the one in the passport.

Here's the funny thing - my passport doesn't have a fingerprint in it. Many world passports don't have finger prints in them. I've watched this particular claim in defense of the finger printing be regurgitated on here several times (that the finger prints are being compared to the passport, which is a ridiculous notion anyways as matching fingerprints isn't a trivial exercise and would slow any port crossings to a crawl) to great humor. Maybe repetition will make it true.

It's amazing how Europe has taken a dozen plus countries with wildly different histories and values, merged them into the European Union, and you can travel uninhibited throughout the entire entity. People like you would go nuts over this.

However I'm most certainly not angry about the US fingerprinting or taking pictures : It truly is their prerogative (personally I think it's a good measure from an immigration control perspective, though it has absolutely zilch to do with avoiding terrorism). Also the parent poster indicated no displeasure with the US fingerprinting. This all started with a classic jab at Canada, which is so common in these parts. The only reason countries like Brazil got angry is that they weren't in the "exclusion" list.

Thanks for the Mad Cow disease too. Notice how we're being big about it?

Oh how I knew that this would pop up. Absolutely classic (just like how Ontario was to blame for the blackout...It's always those damn foreigners! Oops, it was actually Ohio.) Here's the funny thing: The beef industry in North America is totally integrated, and has been for decades, yet when `Canada' got a case of mad cow (which we got via some cows imported from Britain [with shipments shared with the US], yet strangely I've never seen a righteous Canadian railing against those damn Brits -- biological entities are the world's children) the US slammed the door shut as fast as it could because it was some great posturing to get around WTO rules while patting US cattlemen (such as Texans) on the back. When the US got mad cow, we banned a couple of basic products but didn't shut our border, and actually petitioned other world traders to be more reasonable this time. What does the US do? Attempt to pretend that the cow is actually Canada's problem (all while recalling meat because of a horrendously risky lack of basic food safety). How absurd. It is entirely conceivable (and debatable) that the whole source of this issue came from a US cow at the outset, and there is a festering latent mad cow issue in the US (given the total lack of effective guards against against it).

Blaming mad cow on Canada is like the asswipe who tries to assign a chain of blame everytime he gets a cold: The guy that everyone wants to punch in the face.

Does this really solve a problem?

[wrmrxxx]

Were the September 11 hijackers travelling under false passports? I was under the impression that they were not. If this system had already been in place in 2001, would the outcome have been any different?

Is accurate knowledge about who is entering the USA through airports really a significant problem for those trying to predict and prevent future terrorism incidents? I would have expected that a greater problem was knowing the intentions and tracking the actual actions of individuals.

If this system works perfectly, surely people with terrorist intentions will know it, and simply not enter the USA legally? It's not as if the USA's borders are impregnable - there are large numbers of people managing to enter without passports or visas. It's like carefully putting a lid on the bucket to make sure you don't spill any water, but ignoring the leak-hole at the bottom of the bucket.

This is the first step...

[FlyGirl]

... and once we all get used to this, I wonder how long it will be before they want to fingerprint ALL airline passangers. Many might say I am paranoid, but I have always been worried about "having control" of my fingerprints -- yeah, yeah, I realize I leave them behind everywhere, but there's something scary to me about the government having them. Just too bad that they don't have some kind of device that I could be reasonably sure would check my fingerprints against the known criminals and then DISCARD them -- I'd feel much better if I knew that they weren't keeping a permenant record of them for possible future use who-knows-when and who-knows-how. And, please, don't give me the age old line of "If you've done nothing wrong, what are you afraid of?" Some of us just like privacy (and respect it in others) for the sake of it.

Re:This is the first step...

[tftp]

I wonder how long it will be before they want to fingerprint ALL airline passangers

It probably will start as a voluntary, convenience measure - that proverbial carrot. There are enough people who do not care, or do not understand what they are subjected to. Many people today are just consumers of goods and services, and they will gladly take 10% discount on airfares (or something) for using a fingerprint-based identity check.

Once part of the population is hooked, that will be played against the rest of people, placating them as "OBL's helpers" or something else, equally ridiculous and equally effective. A "Red Corridor" can be set up for refusniks, for example, and it will be much slower. The attrition will move the plank from the original 30% to maybe 80%, since people will just submit and continue with their lives.

The rest, 20% or less, will be then forced into the new groove. A mandatory body cavity probing, complete with X-ray, in every airport would be a good start; after some time, cumulative dose of X rays will be deadly anyhow. And to clean things up, a little-known rider will be inserted into an agriculture bill to completely outlaw travel and some other activities unless positively ID'ed with biometrics.

You may say it is too dark a future. I say, if it can be done, it will be done.

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.

Re:I hope they wash their hands.

[feagle814]

RTFA, man. It's contactless, a camera system that only takes a photo of your fingerprint. No touching involved.

Department of redundancy department

[macdaddy357]

Digital fingerprints? That's redundant. Fingers are also called digits.

I just got printed ...

[rjethmal]

... at Miami International. I just got back from winter break back home in Panama. The actual process is quite simple and none of the people I saw going through it seemed to have any problem with it, pretty much everyone seems to accept it as one more thing the US is doing in its effort to 'protect' itself.

It's almost business as usual at the airport, customs officers just have two new toys: the fingerprint scanner and a webcam. The added hassle is less than 20 seconds. Left index, right index, look at the camera, done.

Do I think it's a Good Thing? Not really, do I mind? Not really, after all, I'm not a terrorist!

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.

Re:I just got printed ...

[bfg9000]

none of the people I saw going through it seemed to have any problem with it, pretty much everyone seems to accept it...

There's a simple explanation for that. If you make a joke, or say anything against the new fascism, you are detained for HOURS, and everybody knows that. Although I think this is a complete load of sh*t, when I go through it next week (as a Canadian, "the newest enemy of George W"), I'm sure as hell keeping my mouth shut and smiling. DoublePlusGood security ma'am!

Last year, the "nice lady" demanded my father (white, 55 years old, expensively dressed, no criminal record) *remove* his pants -- IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY. He refused, things started to get ugly, and they finally gave in and let him pass. He's now gotten a new attitude, one which is hurting the US economy in a small way, but which, I'm sure, is going to be duplicated by many, until it hurts the economy in a big way. He's stopped buying American. He doesn't travel there. And he speaks his mind without fear (which my American friend Tom tells me he can no longer do in "the freest country on Earth")... I just pray you guys vote the Democrats in next time. I never thought I'd say this, but for Christ's sake, Bush is killing your economy as well as your prospects. Who does he work for, China? I'd rather have the US as a superpower than China or India, but it looks like you guys are ushering yourselves out. Sad.

Re:I just got printed ...

[JimBobJoe]

... at Miami International....none of the people I saw going through it seemed to have any problem with it

Many passengers through Miami come from Latin American countries. Expectations of privacy in Latin American countries are much lower; I would venture a guess that all LatAm nations have a national ID card with a fingerprint. (At least the ones I know of...)And with, as another poster noted, people being scared of customs officials, they'll do whatever they can.

Brazil takes itself a bit more seriously than other LatAm nations. They have the weight to throw around if they wanted, and they're used to being listened to much more than El Salvador. They resent being treated as less than Europeans. It's not so much the fingerprinting, as much as the grouping.

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 problem does it solve?

[mr100percent]

OUR ENEMIES AT HOME
Daniel Levistas, New York Times, 12/13/03
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/opinio n/13LEVI.h tml

In April, as Baghdad fell and American soldiers began searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, federal officials uncovered a cache of deadly chemicals much closer to home - in the eastern Texas town of Noonday. The stockpile included a fully functional sodium cyanide bomb capable of killing hundreds, as well as neo-Nazi and antigovernment literature, illegal weapons, half a million rounds of ammunition, and more than 100 explosives, including bombs disguised as suitcases.

William Krar, a 62-year-old manufacturer of gun parts and a right-wing extremist who had rented the storage locker in which the cache was found, has pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing a chemical weapon and faces a possible life sentence. Two others - Judith L. Bruey, Mr. Krar's companion, and Edward Feltus, a member of a parmilitary group called the New Jersey Militia - are awaiting sentencing.

An isolated incident involving a few Americans on the far-right fringe? Most people probably assume so, but federal authorities served more than 150 subpoenas in the case, and are still searching for others who may have been involved.

The Noonday case shows just how serious a threat we face from domestic terrorists. Consider this year's other high-profile incident involving rightist causes: the arrest of Eric Rudolph, accused of bombing abortion clinics and the 1996 Olympics. During his five years in the wilderness, he was often viewed by the public and press as a lone fugitive. But law enforcement officials have linked him to two national movements: the Army of God, a biblically inspired underground network of anti-abortion extremists; and the Christian Identity movement, whose members believe that Jews are the literal children of Satan, nonwhites are sub-human, and that Anglo-Saxon Christians are the true descendants of the lost tribes of Israel...

Still a big hole in the short term

[wrmrxxx]

If you are travelling from a country that participates in a visa waiver program (e.g. Australia), you don't need to get your finger print checked. This is on the assumption that such countries will have biometric information recorded in the passport by October of this year. I'm guessing this means any Australian travelling to the US for less that 90 days that doesn't want to have to apply for a visa will need to replace their current passport (probably at considerable expense).

Between now and October, however, a traveller with a passport from a visa waiver qualifying country can get in without ever being finger-printed. The message from the US government could not be clearer: if you are going to commit acts of terrorism, don't tell us you are going to stay longer that 90 days when you first enter the country, and please make sure you do this before the next Federal election.

Re:Still a big hole in the short term

[tftp]

Other posters indicate that even citizens of a waiver country will be fingerprinted if they need a visa - and there are many reasons why they may have one (such as to work or study in US.) Some citizens of those countries were already fingerprinted and posted their experiences here.

The waiver skips fingerprinting only if you are visiting briefly, with only sightseeing purpose, or for very limited business activities (like a trade show.)

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:DNA is VERY different

[tftp]

The fingerprint itself holds no information about who the fingerprint belongs to

Unless the fingerprint is accompanied by your photo, and a complete record of who you are - as it just happens in this case.

What's to prevent 'false' fingerprints

[davester666]

What's to prevent the bad guys from putting a bit of rubber with a bogus fingerprint embedded in it to get around this?

If it's thin enough, a temperature test [and possibly pulse detection] could be fooled.

Maybe they should also scrub your fingertips with steel wool to make sure it's the real print... :-)

slippery slope

[ozten]

This is crazy. Next thing you know they will be forcing all visitors to our free land to be finger printed and mug shots taken.

Foreigners pre-guilty until checked into Guantanamo Bay.

With the state of the US, I can't even make up a funny slippery slope, cause we are already at the bottom of the hill.

Re:get over it.

[swordgeek]

Funny thing about those countries where they cut off your finger. They only cut off the fingers of the criminals.

This measure (a) will do nothing to stop terrorism or crime, (b) will give the government inappropriate powers to track foreigners, and (c) is the thin edge of the wedge that will lead to mandatory fingerprinting of ALL foreign nationals (and non-native-born citizens) as well as mandatory ID cards, which must be carried at all times. Just like Hitler did with the gays and jews.

Ain't the "first" step

[Migraineman]

This is just another step. There are any number of other situations where you're required to present fingerprints and other information for background checks as a condition of employment. Need a security clearance? Want to be an elementary school teacher? A daycare provider? A warehouse employee where explosive materials are stored?

They take your fingerprints, and do what with them after the background investigation is complete? File 13? I think not. It goes into your "permanent record", and I ain't talking about the one that the high school administrators threatened you with.

Once you release the information to the gub'ment, you can't take it back. There are many seemingly innocent "checks" that will funnel the information into places you really don't need it to go. My fingerprints are on file with the gub'ment because of a job application that required a clearance. Ultimately I didn't take the job, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm "accounted for" to the same degree as someone who's been arrested. I didn't realize how disturbing it would be until after the fact.

Facist/Communist

[Valdrax]

There's only one major difference between Facist dictatorships and Communist dictatorships -- does the government own and control all industry (Communist) or is it controlled by a few private citizens who are close friends with the administration (Facist)? The methods of control and the usurping of democracy work the same no matter what econmics lie behind your totalitarian system whether we arrive there through bloody revolution like the Soviets or warmongering, security obsession like the Nazis.

(Yeah, yeah, f--- Godwin's Law. Remove the racist purges and replace zealous worship with apathetic inaction by the masses and you've got a good model of where we could be going if Bush were honestly an evil man instead of being mostly misguided. Read German history. The parallels are terrifying, and yet reassuring in that we did not step off that chasm that presented itself so many times.)

Similarities between Dubya and the Fuhrer..??

[IronBlade]

Disclaimer: This is not my work, I got it in an email and thought it was relevant to "president" Bush's Homeland policy building:


Consider the following, it's an old tactic: Adolf Hitler presided over a major national disaster (the burning of the Reichstag, the national parliament building) which he was discovered later to have participated in creating. That event gave him the opportunity to declare an emergency and expand his dictatorial powers further. He used the war-terminology "homeland" often, and whipped up fervent patriotism to support his wars. He used war as a means to distract people from domestic troubles and issues, kept the population of the country in constant fear, and exploited that fear for his own purposes. Hitler said in his writings that if you cannot create war then at least continue to propagate the idea that war is coming. -- R. E. Bell

"Never leave people in peace, because when they are in peace, you are nobody. Then they don't need you; your very purpose is gone. They need you only when there is danger; so create danger. If there is not real danger, at least create the climate of a false danger." -- Adolf Hitler

Re:Similarities between Dubya and the Fuhrer..??

[The Only Druid]

This sort of statement fundamentally misunderstands the reasons for World War 2: one of the primary causes of it was the massive sense of resentment and anger on the part of the German people towards the nations that had defeated them so soundly during the first World War. As a result, their crushed economy as well as bruised egos left the people ripe for ideological exploitation like Hitler did. He created scapegoats for existing problems in the person of the Jew, and in doing so gave a strawman to the Germans.

Re:Similarities between Dubya and the Fuhrer..??

[Lord_Slepnir]

one of the primary causes of it was the massive sense of resentment and anger on the part of the German people towards the nations that had defeated them so soundly during the first World War.

The problem was that Germany wasn't soundly defeated in WWI. The only thing that kept the western front from collapsing in 1918 was the timely arrival of American Troops. Germany had already eliminated Russia from the picture, and they were preparing to finish off the French when peace came. What happened was that the blockade, designed to starve out Germany, did just that. It was because of a food shortage that Germany was forced to surrender. Because the troops on the front lines didn't feel like they were defeated, many Germans returned home in disgrace with no idea why they had lost. They needed someone to blame. It was this kind of thinking that provided Hitler et al. minds that would be willing to listen to his garbage.

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

Hello, police state!

[cartzworth]

Where, oh where have all our (and foreigners) rights gone?

Re:Hello, police state!

[Tassach]

Foreigners dont have rights. Rights are for citizens. Legal resident aliens are given rights as a luxury

Yet another fool who slept through Civics 101. Get it through your skull: the Constitution does not grant rights to people, IT GRANTS (AND DENIES) POWERS TO THE GOVERNMENT. The US government may not legitimately exercise any power not enumerated in the Constitution. The enumerated powers of Congress are:

• Levy Taxes
• Borrow money on the credit of the United States.
• Spend when authorized by an approriations bill
• Pay the Federal debt
• Constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
• Declare War
• Raise armies, a navy, and provide for the common defense
• Introduce constitutional amendments and choose the mode of ratification
• Call a Constitutional Convention on the application of two-thirds of the States
• Regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
• Coin Money
• Standardize the value of currency
• Regulate copyrights and patents
• Establish federal courts lower than the Supreme Court.
• Limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.
• Standardize weights and measures.
• Establish uniform times for elections.
• Control the Postal System
• Establish laws governing citizenship
• Make its own rules and discipline its own members.
• Provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, piracy, treason and other Federal Crimes.
• Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia
• Establish Bankruptcy laws
• Override presidential vetoes.
• Oversee all Federal property and possesions
• Fill a vacancy in the presidency in cases of death or inability
• Receive and count electoral votes for the Presidency
• Keep and publish a journal of its proceedings
• Conduct a census every ten years.
• Approve treaties, cabinet level appointments, and appointments to the Supreme Court (Senate only).
• Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers.
• Initiate all bills for raising revenue (House only).

If it ain't on this list, Congress can't do it (without violating the Tenth Amendment). The only possible source for this fingerprinting scheme would come from the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to get away with using the Commerce Clause as a get-out-of-jail-free card to justify just about anything which might potentially have some nebulous and indirect connection with interstate commerce.

Psychic stunt

[jdifool]

Hi,

how funny is this article that unwillingly proves the inefficiency of that measure.

After a short presentation, we have the list of countries that are exempted from having their tourists and/or workers scanned. Which countries are these ? Europe, Japan, Australia. I can understand for the two latters, but if September 11th proved something, it's that terrorist networks are deep-rooted in Western societies, especially Europe and the US. So, guys, you still have until October to make a great deal of this measure.
Plus a nice snippet in this paragraph : The travel data are supposed to be securely stored. Oh, Yeah.

The funniest thing is that people do believe in that kind of crap. They think it will make their country more secure. They think that preventing a crime or other legal issues -(Oh, Yeah)- charged person will prevent them from having some other non-beared people bombing towers with suicide planes. Or maybe it's the governement that initially thinks it will make the people more confident. Until the next time. But for now it's working. Psychological assault, well done.

Apart from that, there are remarks to make on a more general scale :

• What kind of diplomatic measure is this to exclude countries from a policy, just because they enjoy the same wealth as you do ? What kind of antipoor racism is that ? If they had based that on security researches trying to determine potential threats, ok. But, Brazil ? Argentina ? Chile ? The US governement really seems to want to widen the gap.
• I'm not aiming the US in particular ; the EU does the same with the Shengen visa towards poor countries. This is a general policy amongst Western societies
• And in my opinion, this is where radicalism, and at last terrorism, stems from. The governements may understand that terrorism cannot be avoided. Look the situation in Palestine ; security has been Israel prime target for 15 years now, and where are the results ? Policies have to focus on the causes, not the consequences. Why terrorism ? Has anyone ever asked ? We should wonder about the Arab world, I mean how do they consider us, what's their state of mind internally, how do they compare to us, what do they want to resist, why are they so proud. Some questions that are rather fundamental to the understanding of a problem that can't be avoided by security. Repeat please : CAN'T be avoided by security.

Again, I'm not trying to depict a black and white landscape. It's not the Arabs versus the Americans. But indeed it has some things to do with the global relationship of the West with them. Think about it ; we've been playing the geopolitic bastards with them for more than a century now. How may they feel ?

Regards,
jdif

Reminder : I'm not Arab :)

Don't be mad

[Chuck Chunder]

When you get offered five fingers wrapped in a latex glove in return!

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...

Re:What a terrible thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I want to buy this rock.

First impression of the US...

[Gorimek]

You know how you only get one chance to make a first impression?

The US government has already exploited that chance by forcing all foreign visitors to fill out an insane form on the plane, asking among many, many other mostly bizarre things

• Have you ever engaged in genocide, or otherwise ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in the killing of any person because of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinion?
  
• Do you plan to practice polygamy in the U.S.?
  
• Do you intend to engage in the U.S. in espionage?
  

...on top of this, they will now be fingerprinted and mug shot at arrival. I'm sure I don't need to spell out what first impression this will give the average traveller.

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.

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:Here's why.

[ojQj]

I know what you mean.

I'm a US citizen who lives in Germany. My US state of residence is Texas. So when I went in to renew my driver's license while I was on vacation visiting my parents, the DMV insisted on fingerprints. I had to give up my fingerprints to get a freaking driver's license.

I'm not quite sure how that can harm me, but it really makes my skin crawl. If I had it to do over again without the surpise factor, I would have refused, and done without a US driver's license. I was in the process of getting my German license anyways.

On a related note: does anyone know if there are other states which require fingerprints for a driver's license? Does anyone know what happens if you actually refuse?

Re:Here's why.

[sxpert]

remember this slashdot article that reffered to that
crypto-gram issue ???

quote :
Fun with Fingerprint Readers

Tsutomu Matsumoto, a Japanese cryptographer, recently decided to look at biometric fingerprint devices. These are security systems that attempt to identify people based on their fingerprint. For years the companies selling these devices have claimed that they are very secure, and that it is almost impossible to fool them into accepting a fake finger as genuine. Matsumoto, along with his students at the Yokohama National University, showed that they can be reliably fooled with a little ingenuity and $10 worth of household supplies.

Matsumoto uses gelatin, the stuff that Gummi Bears are made out of. First he takes a live finger and makes a plastic mold. (He uses a free-molding plastic used to make plastic molds, and is sold at hobby shops.) Then he pours liquid gelatin into the mold and lets it harden. (The gelatin comes in solid sheets, and is used to make jellied meats, soups, and candies, and is sold in grocery stores.) This gelatin fake finger fools fingerprint detectors about 80% of the time.

His more interesting experiment involves latent fingerprints. He takes a fingerprint left on a piece of glass, enhances it with a cyanoacrylate adhesive, and then photographs it with a digital camera. Using PhotoShop, he improves the contrast and prints the fingerprint onto a transparency sheet. Then, he takes a photo-sensitive printed-circuit board (PCB) and uses the fingerprint transparency to etch the fingerprint into the copper, making it three-dimensional. (You can find photo-sensitive PCBs, along with instructions for use, in most electronics hobby shops.) Finally, he makes a gelatin finger using the print on the PCB. This also fools fingerprint detectors about 80% of the time.

Gummy fingers can even fool sensors being watched by guards. Simply form the clear gelatin finger over your own. This lets you hide it as you press your own finger onto the sensor. After it lets you in, eat the evidence.

Matsumoto tried these attacks against eleven commercially available fingerprint biometric systems, and was able to reliably fool all of them. The results are enough to scrap the systems completely, and to send the various fingerprint biometric companies packing. Impressive is an understatement.

There's both a specific and a general moral to take away from this result. Matsumoto is not a professional fake-finger scientist; he's a mathematician. He didn't use expensive equipment or a specialized laboratory. He used $10 of ingredients you could buy, and whipped up his gummy fingers in the equivalent of a home kitchen. And he defeated eleven different commercial fingerprint readers, with both optical and capacitive sensors, and some with "live finger detection" features. (Moistening the gummy finger helps defeat sensors that measure moisture or electrical resistance; it takes some practice to get it right.) If he could do this, then any semi-professional can almost certainly do much much more.

More generally, be very careful before believing claims from security companies. All the fingerprint companies have claimed for years that this kind of thing is impossible. When they read Matsumoto's results, they're going to claim that they don't really work, or that they don't apply to them, or that they've fixed the problem. Think twice before believing them.

Matsumoto's paper is not on the Web. You can get a copy by asking:
Tsutomu Matsumoto

Here's the reference:
T. Matsumoto, H. Matsumoto, K. Yamada, S. Hoshino, "Impact of Artificial Gummy Fingers on Fingerprint Systems," Proceedings of SPIE Vol. #4677, Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques IV, 2002.

Some slides from the presentation are here:
presentati

Re:Here's why.

[Larsing]

The UK government doesn't feel a need to fingerprint me.

David Blunket does...

This is complete crap

[TerryAtWork]

In spite of their propensity for guns and the fact that they make bitchin' tanks, the Americans know jack about security.

Before it was 'This is a picture of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers' now it will be 'This is a picture of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. These are the fingerprints of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. This is the retinal print of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. This is how many hairs he had on his left butt cheek. This is how many hairs he his on his RIGHT butt cheek....'

The point is all you REALLY needed to know was that he was an Al-Quida sleeper agent, and they didn't know that.

Re:What a terrible thing

[Chris Johnson]

But how else are you going to come up with the fingerprint database and be ready for when the government determines which patterns of whorls on fingers mean you are a terrorist? They will be able to pre-emptively execute or at least imprison terrorists thanks to this simple practice, except you, you ungrateful wretch, you're trying to get in the way.
How will George Bush know which sorts of whorls mean you're a terrorist?
I'm sure God will be good enough to tell him. :P

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.

Just saw this in Atlanta

[plimsoll]

Four days ago I took LH444 from Frankfurt am Main to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta, and I was surprised to see this, uh- system in person.

The fingerprint scanners were pretty snazzy, but the cameras at each officer's desk looked like cheap spherical plastic webcams ziptied to even cheaper-looking lectern microphone holders.

As a US citizen and ostensible taxpayer ;) I'm actually somewhat impressed they considered off-the-shelf consumer products. OTOH, I don't feel any safer, but a more-expensive camera would have no effect on that feeling.

Has anyone else seen these? I'm curious whether these cheap cams are strictly an ATL thing - which would be strange considering it's the biggest airport in the country - or if this is a standard observed at the other ports of entry.

( Nicht vergessen: photography and use of cellphones by passengers is prohibited in these areas. I got excoriated for just looking at my handy in line.)

'Digital fingerprints'? Is there another kind?

[The Famous Druid]

Aren't all fingerprints digital?

Germany 1936 = USA 2004

[Anonymous Coward]

Having had the pleasure of being treated as as criminal by USA immigration and being scanned in I have to say good luck to the Yanks. You now live in the least free country of the world.

Land of the free, land of the sick and corrupt more like.

On arrival you have pictures of Il Duce Bush on the wall, you are processed like a criminal and then let out into a society where everyone is shooting each other. Its like the film Escape from New York without the benefit of being fiction

Re:What a terrible thing

[Homology]

To the sorrow of many, US is not know for supporting democracy and human rights in the Middle East. So to give a quote from the historian Gabriel Kolko in the aptly named Hoping for Amnesia :

"The United Stares supplied Iraq with intelligence throughout the war [with Iran] and provided it with more than $US5 billion in food credits, technology, and industrial products, most coming after it began to use mustard, cyanide, and nerve gases against both Iranians and dissident Iraqi Kurds."

And for the prospect of a public and fair trial (yes, even horrendous criminals has that right in a state ruled by Law) :

It is hard to believe that either Washington or London would relish the prospect of an open trial. They would not want Saddam to adumbrate their support for him - credit-by-credit, pathogen-by-pathogen, weapon-by-weapon - during the 12 years before he became an official enemy by invading Kuwait in August 1990.

So you see, some of the very members of the current administration was supporting Saddam at the height of his crimes. Do you know understand why so many are quite cynical about Bush'es declaration of democracy and human rights for all?

Re:What a terrible thing

[Homology]

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

Indeed. Outside of Kabhul and a few other areas, Afghanistan is ruled by brutal war lords. And they are feuding among themselves.

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:Am I the only one?

[fuzzybunny]

"If you don't like having anal probes inserted at police checkpoints to make sure you're not a butt-bomb carrying terrorist, then don't stay".

Do you realize how absurd this is?

"If you don't like it, don't come" is as silly a statement as "if you don't like the U.S. of A., go somewhere else, ya freakin' commie."

I'm an American, living overseas. I have family in the US. They're about the only thing right now keeping me from sending back my US passport, whether I'm "allowed" to forfeit my citizenship (I have another) or not.

And as for Brazilians picking on Americans, I say go for it. Pick on anybody pale-faced, carrying a fanny pack and speaking in a nasal whiney voice. Maybe that'll make people realize how pointless, intrusive and stupid this sort of thing is.

Bad troll, no donut.

Re:How about....

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you are a stupid fuck.

Oh wait! I forgot how innocent America is and how they're the only victim of terrorism in the entire history of the world, ever.

Oh wait...

Re:How about....

[CrowScape]

Um, what liberty are Americans sacrificing for this "security"? They don't need visas for traveling within the US.

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:What a terrible thing

[corbettw]

Ever had a flight delayed because the mechanics thought something was wrong, then it turned out to be no big deal? Would you rather they just shrug their shoulders and have the plane take off, anyway?

Predictions

[LunaticAtLarge]

2004/1 ... Jack-booted Good ol' Boys arrive at /. to track down the posters of every subversive comment.
2004/11 .. Bush renames "White House" to "White Palace" immediately after election.
2005 .... Bush declares northern Mexico part of Texas, throws out residents, and builds "Texas Palace" there.
2006 .... In new "Freedom of Religion Act", Catholics, Muslims, moderates and atheists are declared official terrorists. Pre-dawn raids on the Vatican successfully eliminate the terrorist threat known as the Pope.
2007 .... Loyalist US Army enforces "Two terms is Two Too Few" Executive Order.
...
2050 .... In "Most evil people in the last 200 years" poll, George Bush beats Hitler 10 to 1.

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.

Not so bad

[Gorimek]

One problem is that even if you can correctly identify every single person entering the country, you can't stop any terrorists until they have a known terror record.

Still, this should effectively put a stop to anyone attempting their second suicide bombing! And that's no worse than most of these anti terror programs.

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.

What's this?

[webtre]

If the plans by the US Office of Homeland Security come through, I won't be able to fly over to the USA with my brand new EU passport without submitting my fingerprints and/or retinal scan with the visa. The new passports will, at the request of the beforementioned office, have to feature digital biometric information that will be fed to a federal database.

I will not submit to this.

DNA Registry

[silentbozo]

Just wait until all incoming visitors to the US must submit DNA as part of the recordkeeping. After all, we wouldn't want any visitors committing crimes, and then leaving the country wihout someway of tying physical evidence to the ingress/egress record, right? Next step after that is to have all US citizens leaving the country submit DNA as well... just in case you're leaving because you're on the run. We'll just have to screen it against all current open crimes...

Once this registry with very current info is established, expect everyone from the left to the right to start mining it - late on your car payments? Exit visa DENIED. Forget to turn in your library books on time? DENIED.

At a certain point in the future, you'd better have your papers in order when travelling from Chicago to LA...

An unjust peace is preferable to the most righteous of wars. - Cicero.

Even peace may be purchased at too high a price - Benjamin Franklin .

(I just read those two quotes together in a book VERY recently, and they stuck in my head. Does anyone remember what book it is??? Arrgh!)

Yes they did. Almost *half* of them did at least.

[Quiet Sound]

8 of 19 alleged hijackers are still alive.

Waleed M Alshehri - alive and well in Casablanca, Morocco

Marwan Al Shehhi - Alive; same link as above

Ahmed Alghamdi - Alive; same link as above

Wail M Alshehri - Alive

Ahmed Alnami - Alive; same link as above

Abdulaziz Alomari - Working for Saudi Telecom

Salem Alhamzi - Working at a petrochemical company

Saeed Alghamdi - Alive; same link as above

Are there any terrorists left?

[Animats]

Not much has happened for several years now, after all. Terrorism deaths never came close to equalling deaths from drunk driving, industrial accidents related to safety violations, medical errors, AIDS. Not even in 2001. Economically, corporate fraud is a far bigger problem than terrorism.

The US has dealt with the problem. bin Laden was at one point Minister of Defense of Afghanistan. Right before the US crushed that government flat. No country is going to tolerate "terrorist training camps" aimed at the US for years to come.

So lighten up already. Yes, there will be incidents in future. But they'll probably come from some completely different direction, like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was done by 100% Americans. We'll have to deal with that when it comes.

With all these Orange Alerts recently ("They're going to attack on Xmas - no, New Years - in Rapahannock County - no, LA - no, Vegas") it's beginning to look like al Queda is down to a couple of guys mouthing off to get attention.

New Zealand's exempt?

[Timbotronic]

By nightfall your country will be teeming with orcs!

Re:What a terrible thing

[cyrax777]

its all feel good bullshit thats the real reason and raising the terrist threat level is a classic case of Catch 22 if they didnt and some major shit hit the fan people would have screamed "WHY DIDNT YOU RAISE THE LEVEL!!!" and since they raised it and nothing happaned people now scream "WHY DID YOU RAISE THE LEVEL!!" I do agree this is all BS to make people "feel" safe.

Don't annotate your almanac!

[psb777]

This is obviously immigration control disguised as an anti-terrorist measure.

The stories we are being spun just seem like a grown up version of the Man from U.N.C.L.E. and
THRUSH. The Man From U.N.C.L.E

I am concerned as to how the War on Terror affects me, personally. Already I was never entirely
trusting of tall buildings and so no change there. I am a little nervous of flying but there
are enough things to go wrong already that hijacking is just another problem. And as we are
going to win the War on Terror, so we are told, I will be able to re-enter high buildings and
sleep on planes. But only when everyone who hates us is dead will tall buildings and planes
be safe. A lot of people are going to have to die.

Which is insane! There must be another way.

Anyway, back to the mundane issue of how this all effects me. And you. We are all being told
by our governments to be vigilent. We are on variously coloured alerts of several levels of
seriousness. We have to be on the lookout for terrorists. Which presents us with a problem:
How do we identify a terrorist? By suspicious activity. We have no choice but to tolerate
being viewed suspiciously by the police and other more secretive government agencies.

This news story from CNN provides insight as to what is meant when the authorities say that
some activity is "suspicious" or "consistent with known methods of al-Qaida". You might
already be guilty of this behaviour so click here:

Don't annotate your almanac!

Perhaps it is one of my many character flaws but I find I am unable to obey _all_ the laws
_all_ the time. Sometimes I feel guilty just passing by a policeman. [Othertimes, like you,
I smile and say hello.] Did he see me jay-walking? Have I fastened my seat belt? Is he
aware I have annotated my almanac?

I assure you this does not happen often but next time my collar is felt by the local constabulary
I wonder if, having now read the CNN article, I will find myself babbling that the jottings
in the margins of my copy of Lonely Planet are not "suspicious".

USA and UK law allows a policeman to arrest someone he suspects of terrorist activity and that person can be help incommunicado but lawyers
are critical because the laws are pretty vague about what this activity is. Such activity,
presumably, would be "consistent with known methods of al-Qaida". By the measure of the USA's
FBI advice to policemen described in CNN's above referenced article it seems any of us can be arrested at any time.

Am I the only one who thinks that the erosion of civil liberties is unlikely to address the
threat of terrorism? Should you share my opinion about the suspension-of-liberty vs terror issue
(i.e. that it's not the either-or choice we are told it is) I advise you not to air it at USA
airport security. Were you to do so while you are prodded in the genitals both with enthusiasm
and a Geiger counter (or while they flick though your almanac) I bet you would miss your flight.

In my view liberty is fragile and is threatened more by authoritarians than by terrorists.
All these supposed counter-terrorist measures are getting too invasive and pervasive for me.

crash ola

[megabulk3000]

...and tonight, as I was trying to rush through customs from one flight to a connecting flight, the entire validation system went down for about 15 minutes, leaving me and about 200 other people in a panic of nailbiting anxiety. The customs agent told me that the crash was due to their having installed the new software needed for the fingerprinting and photo database, and apparently the system had gone down all over the US. All the agents were issued backup CDs to boot up from (although my agent seemed to be having a hard time figuring out how to put the CD into the drive) and then things were back to normal, although presumably without the new photo/fingerprinting system. All the computers were running W2K Professional and had a cool (tho ominous) Department of Homeland Security logo on them.

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.

You should stop CREATING terrorists

[nuckfuts]

instead of trying to keep them out. Why is it that Yanks never address the reasons WHY you are so hated in so many places? Or the irony of where people like Bin Laden got their training, anthrax, etc.

You tried prohibition, it didn't work. You waged a "War on Drugs" that didn't work. Now you are waging a "War on Terrorism". Even if it WAS something more than a thinly veiled excuse to protect the price you pay for gas it would still likely fail because you are treating the SYMPTOMS and not the CAUSE. And here's a lttle CLUE for you - adopting a strike-first, unilateral foreign policy is not going to make you safer. It will breed more resentment, hatred and suicidal zealots.

Re:How about....

[Alex Belits]

The USSR wouldn't have survived without proxy-armies battling its expansion?

What armies and what expansion? Since USSR was founded, Finland separated from it, and the only army that actually fought for USSR Communists was their own (sometimes "helping" governments that didn't ask them, though that was quite rare, and limited to the immediate neighbors). USSR had its sphere of influence, but for the whole its history it didn't do anything to expand it, with the exception of WWII when it became inevitable. Its economy was closed, it could get no benefit from trying to be a robber baron, so its military policy was defensive (and shut up about Afghanistan already, it shared the border with USSR, and was massively messed with by some very hostile groups of people -- not that the situation changed much since then). "Support" of Iraq and other "allies" in the Middle East and Africa was a drain on the USSR, and even now those countries owe huge amounts of money to Russia, that they have no intention to pay back.

US on the other hand, did everything that you accuse USSR for -- supported foreign wars, created proxy armies, expanded its military presence to pretty much everything from Japan to Germany to Cuba, not to mention that its involvement with other countries always ended up providing benefits for American big businesses at everyone else's expense.

I have a long list of things I blame Communists/former USSR government/current Russian government for, but the things you have mentioned just aren't there, and to put it simply, you are ignorant about history.

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?

Re:A European & African perspective

[kmichels]

I somehow doubt that those 70+ countries independantly established the presence of WMD in Iraq and did so conclusively and unequivocally. If they had done so, they would have been found by now. The very fact that none have been found, and that the team looking for the weapons has been massively scaled back could indicate one of a number of things:
- that they never existed in the first place which is why nothing has been found
- George don't misunderestimate me Bush and Tony Blah knew darn well that their intelligence on the matter was shaky but did the Dog & Pony show routine to create FUD and so justify going into Iraq and are now quietly scaling the search for WMD's down now that the public is not focussing its attention there any more
- Soddem Hussain had them buried very deep under the sand.

I think though, that on balance, the fact that no trace whatsoever has been found that would even remotely suggest that WMD's ever existed kinda speaks for itself, despite your 70+ countries. Here in the UK it is well known how unhappy the intelligence agencies were with the way in which the politicians used the information they were given. Dr David Kelly's death substantiates this. It has lead to a situation in the UK where i'd venture to say that the majority of the British public don't believe a word the government tells them anymore, and there is a stong concensus here that George Bush is the most dangerous man on the planet, and will say anything to justify his decision to invade Iraq.

Oh dear.

[Khamura]

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

Don't worry, I am not going.

[jotaeleemeese]

And neither are many of my co-nationals.

Since the US instituted these and other insane measure flight occupancy for flights from Mexico to the US has fallen by 30%.

For the first time I am reading and listening to middle class Mexicans that emphatically refuse to be treated like criminals.

No we don't like it, and as much as I regret it (I really wanted to see NY and Las Vegas) iw will follow your kind advice and will not visit your country until those demeaning measures are repelled.

My considerable purchasing power, and the one of as many people I manage to convince, can be used elsewhere.

Oaklahoma

[boogy nightmare]

How many international Terrorists does it take to blow up the Oaklahoma Building ??

Whats the point in being paranoid about all the strange and foreign people when your school kids blow the crap out of each other and your own people do just as much terrorism with in their own borders ???

Re:Cold War Security (Europe)v. WWIII Security(tod

[kruczkowski]

I agree with you. When I arived in Germany around '89 I was a little kid and remeber checking the car with my mom for bomb before we got into it. That was normal. I still live in Germany, same base. Funny thing now is that the Germans are patrolling the gates to the US bases. Why? Becouse the US military is so undermaned.

I think the reason US is going nuts is becouse the last time US citizens experianced war was during the civil war. Even WWII, Americans that lived in the US didn't see or hear any gunshots.

Anyways, if you want to read something scary, read the artice below. Note the date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021 .s tm

Bush was warned

[hughk]

Clinton's people were aware of an immediate ththreat from Al Qaida and they briefed Bush's people when they took over. They didn't have any details about who what and when. Bush disregarded these warnings, perhaps because of other interests. On entry, he had no real idea about foreign policy, except perhaps fionishing off Daddy's dirty little business in Iraq.

Bush should have followed up on the warnings by placing the FBI, State and INS on a higher state of alert (i.e., look carefully at middle eastern visitors and what they are doing). If such a state was in place, the warnings raised earlier in the year may not have been ignored.

Re:Bush was warned

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Bush should have followed up on the warnings by placing the FBI, State and INS on a higher state of alert...

Just curious...what were your thoughts when we were recently placed on "a higher state of alert"?

Re:Bush was warned

[Scratch-O-Matic]

The system is that if at any time a plane flies out of its designated flight path it has 10 minutes to make radio contact before F18s are scrambled and are sent to take the plane down. The orders to scramble the planes come directly from the Pentagon, and to stop them from lifting off would take a direct order from someone very high up.

Take it from someone who flew military jets for 8 years, and who has owned and flown private aircraft: this statement is an out-and-out falsehood. It's so utterly lacking in any foundation that I will forego my usual detailed debate and state simply: IT. IS. CRAP. Any conclusion derived from this falsehood is also crap.

As for the rest of your analysis, I can sum it up this way: intelligence, security, and law enforcement are more about trends than absolutes. Ask yourself: Do burglar alarms prevent burglaries? Do seatbelts prevent traffic fatalities? Do police officers prevent crime? The answer to each, of course, is no, but a clear-thinking observer can see that each provides a move in the direction of the desired end.

Re:Bush was warned

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Yet you seem to be implying that because you were a pilot for 8 years you know every security measure in place. Were you just a pilot, what was your rank that you presume to know know so much?

I flew tactical jets, the EA-6B. I was one of three radar-jamming-guys, and there was one pilot. In that jet, the ECMO, me, does all the radio talking and coordination with agencies in flight. I spent most of my time in North Carolina, so I did quite a bit of flying in and around the coast, the ADIZ, and the capital area, talking all the while to approach control, military controllers, and the air traffic control centers. For the last 4 years my duties, in addition to flying, included training other aviators to plan large scale missions, including coordination with other services, intelligence agencies, and foreign nations.

Your computer engineer and Norton analogy is a good one, and I would never claim that I know everything about any subject, but the military aviation community is not that big, and anyone who spends any serious time in it, as I did, will be exposed to most aspects of the various missions and organizations. A more apt analogy would be working as a network engineer at a large company for 8 years, then having someone who had never worked there tell you about a "standard procedure" at that company.

But, as I said, I would never claim to know everything about anything, and my jet would never have the mission of intercepting a wayward aircraft, so I looked for some hard print to share with you. And do you know what I found? Page after page after page of claims, many of them verbatim copies of each other, that "standard procedures and regulations" hadn't been followed. But there was not one official source of those procedures or regulations. Not a single one. It has become one of those "facts" that is "self-evident" to everyone who wants to believe it, because they see it all over the place. But it's all the same unfounded crap. Mind you, there are definitely procedures for dealing with uncommunicative aircraft. But launching an armed alert aircraft within ten minutes is not one of them (or wasn't on 9-11, at least.) If you want to see about the cost of real security, look into keeping armed alert aircraft ready to go.

Fuel for anti-americanism.

[nikster]

The fingerprinting system may or may not prevent terrorist attacks - it's really impossible to say. In a way, it makes sense to get the visa system clean first (or at least try to clean up this horrible mess).

But what has apparently be overlooked by American authorities / officials is the psychological impact. It really pisses people off. Even here in europe.

I have dealt with the US immigrations authorities a lot (i was studying there) and it's hard to describe the feeling when you are at the receiving end of it. Maybe prison is comparable. You talk to people behind bullet-proof glass, watched by marines with M16s, go through security scans like at the airport, the place is filled with posters that show handcuffed people who broke some immigration law (implying: YOU could be one of them), and, what's worst, the immigration officers do not believe a single word you say - regardless of what it is they always suspect some kind of scam. Even the holy pope himsef would wonder if he had done something illegal.
And that's in Europe! Other places are probably even worse.

Fingerprinting and taking pictures is not improving this situation.

You reap what you sow. And american immigration sows distrust and suspicion. In order to win peace in the world, the USA must win the hearts and minds of people. As it is, America is doing the opposite, most visibly at its outposts all over the world. The free world, looking like a prison or fortress...

I am not against checks, but there has got to be a way to make this humane, and to remove this aura of complete and utter paranoia. (European newspapers were reporting of "snipers on roofs and marines in attack-helicopters on new year's even in NY... )

Re:How about....

[JollyFinn]

Actually the USSR was preparing for expansion before WWII. They considered their responcibility to advance the communism elsewhere. And the war with Finland, and crabbing of baltic states was already planned ahead. It was just implementing the 19th century plans for defence of Leningrad... And they already made preparation years before WWII for attacking finland. Afghanistan was planned assault.
Europe after WWII was out of question due the nuke problem. China had too much population to deal with,
and middle east would of gotten them full scale war against Nato. So what they could of done?
I mean they didn't wan't to get a full scale war against nuclear states and wanted to expand anyway. Their hands where pretty much tied up. Their navy was not as capable for non nuclear warfare as NATO so getting a naval assault on small country was not an option. It was simple.
Before WWII they didn't have industry and military prepare for war. And after US got nukes, and there was strong enough allience to stop em with conventional weapons at non european fronts. Europe is a No, no for soviet expansion because of nato... Now what comes next... Middle east? Well thats US oil, and they properly estimated the result of getting a war in there. Next central asia, well they tried in afganistan, and last is china/mongolia, both communist regimes and war against mongolia would result war against china, with US supplying chinese infantry with weapons...
They expanded during WWII and tried to hold that as much as possible and tryid to expand also but failed. Basicly there was EXPANSIONIST individuals in power for some time. Like stalin and lenin...
(Yes Lenin was expansionist he just though that the country was not ready for it and was correct.)
Finlands,baltic states, belorussians and Ukranian s separation was part of a peace deal between russia and germany , and the war that formed USSR got two of those states back. One because it was base operations of the other fraction and other just because... The smaller states was left intact, just because the internal image would of hurt if they wouldn't shown that they kept their words, until the controlling system was build up.

Especially for the cross dressers!

[aws910]

Look at this pic from crossmatch, the makers of the fingerprint system.

The hand in the pic has hair and veins sticking out. It's a guys hand with a woman's fingernail.

These are the people we are trusting to "secure" our airports? It sounds like an oxymoron on par with "Microsoft Security"!

It's basic game theory...

[Chris Burke]

Which is all I know, so I welcome more thorough and educated analysis. :)

It's a variant on the strategy used in the "prisoner's dilemna"*. In that game, and here, you have a choice to make and so does your opponent. You can choose to try to benefit only yourself at the expense of your opponent, but if your opponent does the same you both suffer. If you cooperate, you both get some benefit, but less than if you choose to take and your opponent chooses to cooperate.

How do you get to the cooperative state? If you volunteer to cooperate, your opponent can take advantage of you. You have to discourage them from taking the larger reward. The solution is to do whatever they did last, every time. If they cooperate, you start to do as well. If they don't, you don't next time. If your opponent is also rational (a huge assumption in game theory, which is why it's theory :P) then eventually you will settle into a mutually beneficial cooperative state.

So yeah, if Brazil's goal is to get the USA to stop fingerprinting, then this is a decent strategy. Not that it will work (see parenthetical about the assumptions of game theory :P).

I wonder what would happen if we did this with everything? What if we killed 3,000 of the Taliban and then stopped? What if, instead of bulldozing a village after a cafe bombing, Israel stopped after they'd killed the twenty or so militants needed to match the number dead? What message would it send? No, it would never work. There's more going on than a single binary decision. There are too many varied interests involved on both sides for them to resist the temptation to try to grab more for themselves. But once again, that's why it's theory!

* Ironically, the strategy does no good in the actual "prisoner's dilemna" situation, since it only works on repeated instances of the same choice.