Slashdot Mirror


US Visitor Fingerprints To Be (Perhaps) Stored by FBI

stair69 writes "Since 2004 many visitors to the United States have had 2 fingerprints taken under the US-VISIT scheme. Now there are new plans to extend this scheme — under the proposal all 10 fingerprints will be taken, and they will be stored permanently on the FBI's criminal fingerprint database. The fingerprints will also be made available to police forces in other countries. The scheme is due to be introduced by the end of 2008, but it will be trialled in 10 of the bigger airports initially." Of course, it is worth pointing out that given the recent change in Congress, I suspect that a number of countries will get a "bye" on this round,

49 of 503 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing for me to worry about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am a US citizen.

    (or am I just fooling myself)

    Fricken scary.

    1. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by ettlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought you'd've realised by now that the US has no citizens, only consumers.

    2. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, now, that's not true. There are indeed US citizens. All you need is enough money and you're still treated fairly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nonsense. Some of us are the consumed.

      KFG

    4. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FWIW, I don't really see fingerprints as "my privacy". You leave the damned things everywhere, your fingerprints are roughly equivalent to your face, its a personally identifiable image. So now we are asking guests of this country if we can take a different type of picture.

      You leave DNA everywhere too. Every time you shed a hair, every time you blow your nose, every time you spit, sneeze, sweat or pick your nose. Your garbage bags waiting out by the curb are probably full of DNA that you have "discarded" and could in theory be taken by the police. Does this mean the Government should build a DNA database of all citizens -- even those who haven't been convicted of anything?

      Are common law protections against unreasonable search and innocent until proven guilty going to become obsolete in the face of modern technology? I for one do not welcome our CSI overlords.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, sounds great to me. Common law goes back centuries when the police didn't have any tools other than eye witness accounts.

      And the common law evolved because of abuses by those same authorities. What makes you think that DNA and fingerprints can't be abused? I don't think technology has changed the fact that we ought to regard the Government with suspicion.

      Change one of those and it would be less than a decade before we have widespread fingerprinting and DNA tracking.

      And why is that a good thing? You do realize that the overwhelming majority of criminals are caught because they screw up, right? It doesn't take magical CSI work to solve most crimes. Talk to any police officer. The cops aren't that much smarter then you or I. The criminals tend to be idiots. You have to ask yourself why the Government needs a database of fingerprints and DNA.

      There is a part of me that wonders why public schools haven't added finger printing to their student ID process. If that single step was taken, within two generations it would become socially acceptable to fingerprint and id everyone.

      And that's the day that my kids become home schooled. You aren't making a compelling argument for why we should stand for this.

      All that needs to be changed is requiring a full set of prints for DL renewal or new DLs. We aren't quite there for DNA, but if we setup our system for fingerprints, how difficult would it be to add a string for your DNA? (Shouldn't be that hard.)

      And again, why should we do this exactly?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      guests of this country You fingerprint suspects, not "guests".
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Nothing for me to worry about by jrockway · · Score: 3, Funny

      Exactly. If you have nothing to hide, why worry? In other news, all walls will be removed from your house and replaced with glass, and security cameras that monitor your every movie will be installed. If you're not doing anything wrong, you should be happy to have this opportunity to show the world!

      --
      My other car is first.
  2. Hilarious by symbolic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess they just haven't learned the difference between quantity of information, and its overall quality. They're dealing with a very low signal-to-noise ratio when 'plans' like this are implemented, and that in itself will become a major impediment to dealing with any true threats. I can't help but wonder if this is coming from the Democrats or the Republicans. If it's the Dems, I'm thoroughly disappointed - I thought the idea was to *reverse* the damage done by the Republican party, not add to it.

    1. Re:Hilarious by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it's the Dems, I'm thoroughly disappointed - I thought the idea was to *reverse* the damage done by the Republican party, not add to it.

      Well, yes, but they aren't simply going to undo everything, as National Security is still a major issue that the Dems cannot afford to appear weak on. They won largely because the Reps were doing such a bad job of actually executing on Security. The degree to which the objections both of the Dems and the voters were based on the Reps leading us towards a police state is debateable but I'd say limited, especially among the elected officials. The "damage" is stupid, failed policies, not evil anti-Democratic policies. So the Dems still want to have an effective and most likely invasive National Security policy, and the question is: Are they in fact any smarter than the Reps in terms of making an actual effective working policy?

      My educated guess: No.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Hilarious by shaneh0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "computers can nowadays compare fingerprints with ease"

      Yes, but since it has to display the photo of the person in order to properly do the print match, won't we get to a point where we can't go any faster? I mean, the human eye is only so fast. The whole notion of finger-print matching just wouldn't feel right if you don't see 10,000 faces stream across the screen before finally finding the match.

  3. Home of the free... by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Welcome to the home of the suspected criminals, land of the bold (if they dare to speak up).

    How does it feel being considered a criminal by default? Heck, in my day job I teach people to treat every input with suspicion and every unknown as if it were malicious, but at least I'm speaking about data, not humans!

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Home of the free... by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just pray that you never have a job that actually requires you to travel anywhere. Actually it's already affecting US business and many companies are looking elsewhere. When you're an isolated third world country that no one visits and everyone trades else where will you still want to stay at home?

    2. Re:Home of the free... by Don_dumb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While I am 100% against fingerprinting CITIZENS of this country, I couldn't give a shit less if someone from outside of the US is fingerprinted. It's their choice to travel to the US and cross our borders.
      You must work for the US tourist industry.

      I always love the idea that many USians think basic human rights so important that only US citizens deserve them. Gitmo Logic.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    3. Re:Home of the free... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I am 100% against fingerprinting CITIZENS of this country, I couldn't give a shit less if someone from outside of the US is fingerprinted.

      That's extremely short-sighted. Did you miss the part about America giving the fingerprints back to the home country of the visitor? Presumably this is being done to evade whatever due-process rights exist in that country. What happens if that's reversed? I go to Canada and get fingerprinted -- Canada helpfully uploads my prints to the FBI database. My rights have been violated and I can't even complain because I "chose" to go to Canada.

      This is the problem when people start rationalizing the erosion of our rights. Terrorism is just the latest excuse. Think of the War on Drugs (property forfeiture laws, expanded search powers). Think of DWIs (implied consent and compelled to give evidence against yourself). Think of the Japanese internment camps.

      I'm sorry but the Constitution doesn't have a "national security" or "DWI" clause. You can't rationalize away the erosion of any rights. It's easy to support the fifth amendment until you see drunks using it to escape DWI convictions. It's easy to support the second amendment until you are held up at gunpoint. It's easy to support the first amendment until the KKK uses it.

      The biggest defender of freedom stands up for the right of somebody he doesn't like to utilize those freedoms in a manner that he doesn't agree with. Anybody else is a hypocrite. And to them I say: You allowed this to happen.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Home of the free... by polar+red · · Score: 3, Insightful

      eople trying to bring more and more violence into the US when did that start ? 11/9/2001? or 1492?
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    5. Re:Home of the free... by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The biggest defender of freedom stands up for the right of somebody he doesn't like to utilize those freedoms in a manner that he doesn't agree with.

      I cannot tell you how exhausting that is. I am frequently accused of being a racist, a communist, a stupid liberal, an arrogant fascist republican, a profiteer, and best of all - ignorant. All because I want the system to work the way it was supposed to and choose to self regulate and protect myself from the dangers that these freedoms bring. That is the cost of these freedoms.

      People don't want these freedoms. People want to live free from being offended, free from possibly being harmed, free from feeling inadequate, free being financially self sufficient, and free from criticism. It's like some weird ass self sustained Harrison Bergeron environment.

    6. Re:Home of the free... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cannot tell you how exhausting that is.

      It is exhausting. Here I am defending OJ for publishing his book or the Westboro Baptist Church for protesting at funerals.

      The basic problem though is that if it's acceptable to silence them because we don't agree with what they stand for then it becomes acceptable to silence me when I criticize Gitmo. The problem with waiving constitutional rights for certain classes of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, DWIs, child molesters all come to mind as the favorite bogeyman) is that it makes it ok to waive them for others.

      "Free speech zones", the erosion of habeas corpus, the complete disregard for the 10th Amendment.... I think the Founding Fathers would be very disappointed in the direction that we've taken the United States in the last hundred years.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Home of the free... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      While I am 100% against fingerprinting CITIZENS of this country, I couldn't give a shit less if someone from outside of the US is fingerprinted.

      Well that's nice. What is your basis for being against fingerprinting citizens? Perhaps the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 4th Ammendment in particular, motivate your belief?

      Well guess what. You won't find the word "citizen" anywhere in the 4th Ammendment or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. They all say "people", and that isn't a synonym for "citizens". When the Constitution means citizens it says citizens.

      A lot of people take for granted that our rights don't apply to non-citizens. This is simply non-factual; there are very few of our rights that only apply to citizens. The rest are for everyone.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Home of the free... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not REALLY using the Constitution as a source in an argument are you? Our government ignores the Constitution on a daily basis, what makes you think that the word 'people' would somehow be sacrosanct?

      Well are we arguing about what is okay, or are we arguing about what the people in power are actually going to do?

      If the former, then the Constitution is a wonderful source as it defines what the government is supposed to have the power to do and what it isn't. Since the person I replied to used the terms "I'm against", and "I couldn't give a shit", I think it is very likely that this is what we are talking about.

      If the latter, then what we the people think is okay is even more important because it is only due to our acceptance or rejection of the government's actions that our rights have any hope of being respected. The Consitution does nothing to protect us as long as it is merely a document, as we all know the documentation and reality can be wildly different things. As far as the Constitution is seen as a list of demands by the people, with the Democratic process being the first and the 2nd Ammendment being the last indication of how we intend to enforce those demands, then it actually works. If we accept the loss of our rights, then they are taken, yet if we refuse to accept them then that is our only chance to have them respected.

      To put it in more practical terms: The last U.S. president to be caught spying on people without a warrant was impeached. What has changed since then, if not acceptance of that kind of behavior?

      Similarly, it is the acceptance by people of the destruction of rights of non-citizens that allows it to continue. Therefore, an argument based on the Constitution about how that should not be allowed can change someone's mind, and thus change the environment in which the destruction of rights occurs.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. number to describe this move by rjdegraaf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1984

  5. Just another reason... by AVee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...to never ever vistit the 'land of the free'. I wouldn't do it currently because of all 'security' measures allready in place. But it's reassuring to find out I was right about that.

  6. What the heck is that supposed to mean? by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Of course, it is worth pointing out that given the recent change in Congress, I suspect that a number of countries will get a "bye" on this round,

    What the heck is that supposed to mean? What countries? And why? And, for that matter, how is congress going to get involved at that level of detail...especially since they're already claiming they can't even do anything to stop Bush from escalating the war, despite the fact that by most accounts they were elected to do just that?

    Was part of this remark clipped off (note the trailing comma) or am I missing some interpretation that is less senseless than the obvious?

    --MarkusQ

  7. Don't count on the "recent change in Congress"... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fingerprint databases are a very useful crime-fighting tool. The only objection to fingerprinting everyone (somewhere in elementary school) is the indignity of (mis)treating every citizen as a (potential) criminal.

    Americans, however, are surprisingly tolerant of the government-imposed indignities — judging, for example, by their willingness to stand barefeet and beltless (belt's buckles are often metallic, you see) on the dirty floor in front of the TSA officers... Removing your footwear for inspection used to be optional (you could elect to be searched instead), but is now required since no one was objecting — except for a few freaks, like yours truly.

    Fingerprinting non-citizens will not even raise the proverbial eye-brow of the nation...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. back at ya by tuxette · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how many other countries will follow suit, that is, fingerprint visitors from the US and store their fingerprints and personal data in their criminal database. Brasil already fingerprints and photographs US citizens (and only US citizens) visiting Brasil...

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
    1. Re:back at ya by outcast36 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, USians on the run from the law are MORE likely to go to Brazil. Brazil has strong protections regarding extradition. While naturalized citizens can be deported, Brazil will actually make the US go through some sort of due process before they ship them off.

  9. My experience by DimGeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I had little choice but to visit the US when I was offered the job of my dreams. Here I am, my two index fingers and thumb prints in who knows what govt databases. With my country now in the EU and my gf back home... I wonder what on earth I'm doing here, but I'm beginning to like it in a strange way.

  10. Avoiding the USA..? by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting


    If this goes ahead, before visiting the USA I want to know:

    1) What is the chance of a false positive with this system? i.e. what is the chance that it might think I am someone they are looking for?
    2) What is the procedure then for someone who is not an American citizen?

    I can imagine what hell you might go through if this system identifies you as a wanted terrorist - not a chance I want to take, even if the odds of it happening are very low.

    1. Re:Avoiding the USA..? by cHALiTO · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's not how it works. AFIS systems, especially criminal ones, don't take -ANY- sort of decision by themselves, they just do some matching on the DB, and produce 'candidates' list (ie: the list of prints that look the most like the one(s) you searched.) then an expert looks at the results, and resumes the identification visually, as they've been doing since fingerprint identification was invented. The system is mostly a HUGE time saver for identification experts.
      So, it's quite unlikely that they'll be checking your airport-scanned fingerprints against the whole database while you wait, as they can't possibly have as many experts checking prints, and would have to automate the process (allowing the system to declare HIT/NOHITs automatically, which means there'd be an error margin). If they did automate the process and actually look for your prints in the whole database, they should be trained and informed that any result from such a system is NOT definitive, and subject to an expert's confirmation to be taken seriously.

      If they're doing anything else than just taking the prints and storing them (no, didn't read tfa.. will do later), most probably they'll be doing authentication rather than identification. That is, the first time they take your prints, store them on a DB related to your passport number for example. When you pass thru the airport again, you're re taken your prints, and they're searched on the DB by your passport number... if your record on the DB says there's your prints there, it will compare the prints it just scanned to the ones on the DB, if they match, no problem, if they don't, houston we have a problem (auth is way more accurate than ident when done automatically, and of course orders of magnitude faster).

      but that's not the problem.. what really scares me is that they're (according to the summary) adding them to a CRIMINAL database!.. that's outright illegal in some countries, and it should well be!! Normally there's a civil database, which is used for civil ident (like say on a bank, or to get a new document or something), and only uses 2 or 6 fingers, non-rolled, which are not fit for matching against crime-scene-lifted partial prints (btw, its quite rare to find a complete, perfect print on a crime scene a la CSI or worse, national treasure.. BS). And then there's criminal systems which keep all 10 fingers, rolled, which can be used to search against crime-scene-lifted partial fps. Mixing the two sucks. Sadly It's also done here in Argentina when you get a passport, as they only have one AFIS system for the federal police, they use the same one both for criminals and for civilians.. (apparently we can't afford 2 systems). Records belong to one scope or the other depending on the ID type. The criminal record (if there's any) is kept elsewhere, on another system, and it's only referenced manually with a common key.
      Still sucks :(

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:Avoiding the USA..? by bheading · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1) What is the chance of a false positive with this system? i.e. what is the chance that it might think I am someone they are looking for?

      The chance exists, because I am one of those people. In 2005 I was visiting New York for a week with my girlfriend. I'd visited the US several times before with no hassles, it didn't occur to me that the heightened security measures might pose a problem.

      After my fingerprints were scanned at the US immigration point in JFK, the rather ignorant and not overly friendly DHS official told me that the computer informed him I was for "special attention" and that I must follow him. He put my passport and green visa waiver form into a bright red envelope and took me down the hallway to this rather dingy room at the back, and told me to wait there. I politely asked if I could have a moment to explain the situation to my gf, but he refused and told me to just wait. There were rows of seats with lots of people, clearly of many different nationalities, waiting to be processed. At the front of the room was a raised desk with three or four DHS officials, tapping away at computers and slowly working their way through the files, calling people up to the desk. I went up to the desk to listen.

      Some of the people being called up were told that they had violated the visa waiver conditions on their last stay - ie they'd stayed in the country for less than 90 days, or they'd failed to hand in the green visa waiver slip that lets them know you've left. At that point I began to get scared. What if my slip had got lost by the airlines on my last visit, and they thought I'd outstayed my welcome ? I'd have been shipped right back home. While I was contemplating this, more and more people were getting processed. Some were getting through, others were not; in particular they'd caught a guy who apparently had drug convictions. They allowed him in the country but arranged a court hearing which would hear the case for his ongoing residence. In many of the cases the DHS officials were speaking with quite stern and unfriendly voices, which was somewhat intimidating. I was wondering what could have happened. I'm squeaky clean and don't have so much as a parking ticket to my name. I've never been arrested or even spoken to strongly by the cops.

      Finally, after around an hour and a half, they got to my folder, and called me up. The guy tapped his computer for a few minutes, then handed me my passport, gave a friendly smile, and told me I was free to go on. I took a risk and asked nicely, what had happened ? He explained that the fingerprint scanning system flags it up when fingerprints look similar to someone who is not supposed to be in the country, and whenever this happened it was checked and recorded. He assured me that it should not happen again.

      At the time I was quite shocked and almost made up my mind never to return to the USA again. My poor gf was waiting outside the whole time - there was nobody to ask what had happened to me, she didn't know if I was going to get out or if I'd been deported or what. Surely they could have found a way for people to hook up with the rest of their group and explain things, so that they could wait back while the background checks were done ?

  11. I like the US. Americans are nice... by Yonzie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And I've spent more than a year living there. However, I'll be damned if I'll set foot in a country that brands me as a criminal the instant I step off the plane. It's no surprise the RIAA/MPAA comes from the same place... It's bad enough with the ridiculous video branding me when I just bought the damn movie.

    Paranoia is nice under some circumstances, but this is just ridiculous. Like they actually think it'll do any good? It'll be really nice to know who blew up WTC v2.0 after the fact, yeah...

    1. Re:I like the US. Americans are nice... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...but I couldn't eat a whole one. At least, not without some fava beans and a nice chianti to wash it down...

  12. As it is I avoid travel to the US by ameline · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As it is now, I avoid travelling to the US -- No, I don't appear or sound middle eastern -- I just don't like the way things are headed south of the border, and I will not spend a single tourist dollar in a country that will illegally deport a fellow Canadian citizen to be tortured in Syria for a year.

    At the moment, I will travel on business -- but if they want my fingerprints for a criminal database -- then I will not travel to the US at all. I will not consent to being fingerprinted for criminal database purposes just because I'm on a business trip.

    (And I'm not one of the left leaning bleeding heart liberal types :-) I tend to lean right -- but this police state crap has got to stop.)

    --
    Ian Ameline
  13. Holy hell by DigitAl56K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's bad enough that the FBI might want to store your prints permanently in a criminal database without cause, but to then share that information with who knows how many other countries?

    How is any individual supposed to protect themselves when you can't even keep track of who has your fingerprints?

  14. You don't have to be guilty. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Interesting
    When I decide to rob banks or kill people, then I'll be worried.
    Be worried.
  15. No finger prints helps. by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just use a belt sander with 80 grit paper on it.

    Turn it on, place fingers on sand paper, hold as long as you can stand it. Repeat until prints are gone. No problem.

    Finger prints are only 1/32 of an in deep. It is dead skin and serves no real purpose. I started sanding mine off several years ago when the state went to mandatory fingerprinting to get a drivers license. It is easy and the look on the persons face when you say "I don't have finger prints!" is just something else. :)

    The other thing you can do is to cover the tips of your fingers with super glue. It works quite well and does not come off for some time.

    1. Re:No finger prints helps. by new+death+barbie · · Score: 5, Funny
      "I don't have finger prints!"


      So... any time there's no fingerprints at the crime scene... that was YOU?
      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    2. Re:No finger prints helps. by malraid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll send a letter to my senator asking him to ban sanding paper. Only terrorists and kidie-porn freaks use sanding paper. Would someone please think of the children?

      --
      please excuse my apathy
    3. Re:No finger prints helps. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just use a belt sander with 80 grit paper on it.

      80 grit? That's like a rough file. Even 180 grit is rougher than necessary.

      80 grit is what we use to take paint off of auto body (hint: taking plastic off of steel, you often benefit from a very rough surface) and to shape bondo. It's what we use to rough wood into shape, because it's fast. It's not what we use to do detail work. Your fingerprints, as you say, are maybe 1/32". I think some 220 grit would probably take them off nicely.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Re:I don't worry by lpoulsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > My fingerprints are in at least one government database
    > (for non-criminal reasons). It doesn't bother me.
    > When I decide to rob banks or kill people, then I'll be worried.

    Remember that fingerprints in the database are stored as encoded strings describing the location of some branching points in the ridge patterns. Essentially a hash function.

    Note that the data on which the hash is constructed is subject to scaling and rotation of the captured image. Note that selection of the points is hard in some people's patterns (because there may be unusually many branch points.

    Now note that we are addding a very large amount of new prints to be processed, of which a much lower proportion will ever be needed than in the previous population of the database. There will be extreme pressure to do this quickly and cheaply with less-skilled operators. This will lead to many false matches.

    We already have many cases of false matches leading to arrest of innocent people when fingerprint data is shared between FBI and Interpol (made worse by some differences in technical standards between different police organizations. And because most of the victims of these false positives will not be US voters, fixing the problems will not be a high priority.

    If you really believe that mass processing of huge fingerprint databases is feasible with acceptably low error rates, you should advocate that a full set of prints for the FBI database should be taken with every US driver's license application. This would have enormous benefits if every fingerprint found at a crime scene could easily be matched. By raising the chance of solving crimes by an order of magnitude, it would create an enormous incentive for people not to commit crimes. But I don't know anyone who trusts the system enough to want this to be done.

  17. Getting Worse Every Time by littleRedFriend · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I travel from Europe to the US on a regular basis (once a month) for work. It's getting worse and worse. They track everything about you. I get held up when trying to enter. They're asking me more and more pointless questions. Like where do you work, what kind of work do you do, when will you going back, when was the last time you visited, where do you stay. I can't book any internal US flights from Europe anymore, since they can't verify my European credit card anymore (this started last month). Welcome to the US, land of the guilty until proven innocent.

    At some point I'm not going to put up with this Bullcrap anymore. I'm just going to stay in Europe. And you can forget about my business.

    --
    IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
  18. Re:Strong border security... by ChibiOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but the average American is innocent in this and need not be subjected to increased risk of terrorism *nor* to Draconian domestic anti-terrorism laws

    The average [inser_country_here] Citizen is innoent too, you know. And yet we are seen as a potential criminal when entering the U.S. (more so if we are Latin American, African or Middle-Eastern).

  19. To some degree, a relief by ghostlibrary · · Score: 3, Funny

    In some ways, this shift from 2 fingerprintes taken, to all 10, is a relief. Previously, terrorists were forced to only use 4 fingers on each hand, in a sort of 'pinky out' high tea fashion (although with their pointing finger, not pinky). This resulted in hazardous RSI conditions which crippled the more active terrorists. For those skeptics reading this, try just hacking into an NSA account, picking a lock, or even spinning a safe combination dial without using your pointing fingers.

    Feel the pain? There you have it, RSI. Now, under this new scheme, at least the terrorists can relax and use all 10 fingers, knowing there is no more false security in those missing 8 records to enjoy. And the US will benefit-- I anticipate that there will be no more class action suits against the US to deal with the former health crisis due to 2-finger exception techniques.

    That said, as a taxpayer I assume the gathering of all 10, instead of just 2, will only incur a moderate 5x cost in upgrading airports and training personel. A bargain!

    --
    A.
  20. Maybe someday they'll integrate databases by origamy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, maybe this time they will integrate databases and realize, for the 6th year, that I am not a US Citizen. Maybe they will stop sending me Jury Duty requests and will also stop sending me Elections related ads and documents, including requests for me to register to vote, which I can't because I am not a citizen.

  21. How Apt by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...some countries will get a bye this round

    Yes, likely a "good bye" from all their citizens who are already ticked off enough at the US. Certainly I've noticed a huge drop in the number of scientific conferences held in the US. Partly because the visa rules prevent - or at least pose severe problems - for some of those attending and partly because there is a noticeable minority of people who now refuse to travel to the US because of the fingerprinting. I can only imagine that this will swell their ranks.

  22. Re:What next....really? by iPaul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that's the most disturbing part for me. Imagine getting picked up when landing in London because you were accidentally tagged as a "money launderer" by the Spanish. It would probably take weeks to get sorted out. In the mean time you could kiss your job good-bye. On top of that with so many databases sharing so much information, you might never be really "cleared." You might land in the US again and get detained for days while they sort out the fact that the Spanish tagged you as a "money launderer," even though it was fixed on the British copy of the Spanish database.

    I saw a news item recently about a girl who'd been held for 30 days for having condoms full of flour, which airport official claimed were drugs. (Apparently filling condoms with flour is how the girls at her school make stress releaving squeezies - odd but eccentricity is not a crime). She spent 30 days in jail while substance was re-tested, only to discover it was, in fact, flour.

    Another example is the US no-fly list. It has literally cost people their livelihoods when they were no longer able to fly. The worst part is they use really poor matching techniques like name matches - so anyone with certain names were not able to board airplanes! Another man interviewed by the Daily Show was labeled as Saddam Huessein's *dead* son, whose age would have required Saddam to have sired him at the age of 11!.

    Here's another delicious example. People who buy large boats that were siezed as part of drug raids often get boarded by the coast guard. The identification number on the ship is almost impossible to change, and the coast guard decides to board the ship based on the registration number. Even though the original owner was arrested and his property was siezed.

    Is this really a good idea?

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
  23. Re:Whatnow? by Mr+Z · · Score: 3, Informative

    A "bye" in this context means "they will be excluded from the requirements." So, if you're flying from certain countries and you're a citizen of that country—e.g. Great Britain—you might not have to give a full print set, but if you're from others, you will. It's sense #1 in this definition.

  24. Hold on a second, paranoids! by catdevnull · · Score: 3, Funny

    All these paranoid comments about privacy and Big Brother assumes that the government is actually organized enough to actually do handle all this information. I'd be more worried about the profiteers coming forward to "contract" the management of all this than the government itself.

    In the mean time, just relax and do what I do: dip your finger tips into sulfuric acid. It doesn't seem tohave anny negattttive effectsss at alll.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  25. Here's my Reference by shaneh0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm pretty confident in my post. You should check my references for this.