British Airport Will Require Fingerprints From Domestic Passengers

ProfBooty brings us a story about England's Heathrow airport, which will begin fingerprinting passengers on its domestic flights later this month. Airport executives claim that the data will be stored for no longer than 24 hours, and will not be shared with law enforcement. We've previously discussed airport fingerprinting measures in the United States and Japan. Quoting: "All four million domestic passengers who will pass through Terminal 5 annually after it opens on March 27 will have four fingerprints taken, as well as being photographed, when they check in. To ensure the passenger boarding the aircraft is the same person, the fingerprinting process will be repeated just before they board the aircraft and the photograph will be compared with their face. Dr Gus Hosein, of the London School of Economics, an expert on the impact on technology on civil liberties, is one of the scheme's strongest critics. He said: 'There is no other country in the world that requires passengers travelling on internal flights to be fingerprinted. BAA says the fingerprint data will be destroyed, but the records of who has travelled within the country will not be, and it will provide a rich source of data for the police and intelligence agencies.'"

Comments

So what's the point?

[sqrt(2)]

data will be stored for no longer than 24 hours, and will not be shared with law enforcement. Then why are you doing it? It seems like they're just trying to get the citizens used to these kinds of abuses so that when they do start cross-checking and retaining data indefinitely nobody will be able to tell the difference, or care.

And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:So what's the point?

[palegray.net]

They can have my fingerprints when they pry them from my cold, dead... oh, wait.

Re:So what's the point?

[shoemilk]

Exactly, It's not like the terrorist didn't have leagal and valid id! They were exactly who they said they were! There is no point! I need more exclamation points!

Re:So what's the point?

[WallyDrinkBeer]

Britain went through so many terrorist attacks via the IRA. Why do a couple of idiot doctors setting their cars on fire provoke this sort of response? Insane. Bring back thatcher!

Re:So what's the point?

[Original Replica]

There is only no point if you still believe that all this new "security" is actually about terrorists. If you view it from the idea of making people used to the idea of being bullied and controlled then it makes perfect sense. "A society will remain as free or as enslaved as the conscious dispositions of individuals determine it shall be. Just as the roots of oppression are found in passivity, the foundations of our liberty reside in highly energized and focused minds that insist upon their independence. There are no shortcuts, no structures or doctrines that can be erected, no hallowed documents to be revered, to save us the effort of continually challenging those who would presume to exercise authority over our lives." -- Butler Shaffer

Re:So what's the point?

[calebt3]

I need more exclamation points! I'll sell you some. How's $10 for 500,000 sound?
Here's a complimentary starter pack: !!!!!

Re:So what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

In terminal 5 they will be mixing international and domestic flights. The biometric security is meant to prevent domestic and international travelers from swapping passports/tickets after they get past the security check point. This is why they claim to remove the data after 24hrs.

The idea is just to provide a more solid means of checking if the passport a person entered the country with is the same passport they are leaving with.
Otherwise you will have to have flight attendants at the gate try to determine if a 5-10yrold picture (passports are valid for several years) is just an old photo or if the person switched their passport/flight with someone else.

Re:So what's the point?

[mrbluze]

Then why are you doing it? Obviously no timebombs are ever designed using a timer that can count beyond 24 hours. *rolles eyes*

Re:So what's the point?

[Admiral Ag]

Since it doesn't seem to matter who you vote for in Britain, it appears that the only way to stop crap like this would be active forms of civil disobedience, which the authorities would then point to to justify what was being protested against in the first place. Joseph Heller would be proud.

Re:So what's the point?

[moezaly]

Dude u r giving them ideas... dont do that

Re:So what's the point?

[pokerdad]

Obviously no timebombs are ever designed using a timer that can count beyond 24 hours. *rolles eyes*

Of course they can't count beyond 24 hours - Jack Bauer only ever has 24 hours!

Re:So what's the point?

[Original Replica]

Same problem here in the States. I wonder if the various parties stopped offering real differences in policies around the same time the most powerful political action committees started contributing to both candidates of a single election? I wonder how long nearly meaningless elections will continue to make people believe that they actually have some kind of voice in their government?

Re:So what's the point?

[mcpkaaos]

Are you so certain? In some cases, didn't some of the hijackers turn up alive a year or so later? Were not several of the identities actually stolen? Can anyone shed more light on this?

You're welcome.

Re:So what's the point?

[Zemran]

They are only doing this at Heathrow so any bad men can just hop on the shuttle bus and fly from Gatwick... Not any real inconvenience to the average terrorist but a big pain in the rear for Joe Public...

Re:So what's the point?

[ubermiester]

Freedom has always been worth dying for. Many citizen soldiers have died on the field of battle to establish and defend freedom, and now the struggle has been brought to our doorstep. But we are not soldiers; we have no weapons to wield.

Our instinct is to take away the weapons of our enemy. But we are horrified to find that they are using freedom against us. We recoil and draw back our trust. No longer can we take the good will of our neighbors for granted. So with the best intentions we seek to contain anyone who throws an ominous shadow.

But the young men who carried explosives onto trains and buses in London did nothing to draw our special attention. The morning of the bombings, they were seen conferring together by surveillance cameras. But human eyes cannot be everywhere. They could have written their intentions directly on the lens of that camera and no one would have noticed until it was all over. The men who boarded those planes more than seven years ago did not trigger any alarms or overwhelm any security systems, they simply bought some tickets.

So we are left with a sobering choice. Do we continue to retract our trust in one another; throwing up human and technological defenses against ourselves? Voluntarily retracting one another's personal freedoms in the hope of leveling the playing field? Or do we make something old, new again?

Though there is certainly a political element to the battle we fight, but the root of the conflict is ideological. Our enemy is not enamored with freedom the way we are. It calls our defense of liberty for all ways of life foolish and self-destructive. There is, after-all, a natural law revealed for all to see, and the failure to recognize and enforce it is the seed of our downfall. Those who threaten our souls should be singled out and punished. It is ultimately our single minded defense of freedom that allows the devil in us to find safe harbor. Perhaps they are right; but only partly so.

Freedom allows the unfettered expression of the best in us as well as the worst. A natural law revealed in the hearts of people around the world is only served by the freedom to express it. What better way to talk truth to power than to do it freely and openly? What better way to aid your fellow man's soul than to do it without fear of reprisal?

But reminding those who would strike down this offering with violence or repression is not enough. We must live the ideal if we are to demonstrate its full potential. Thus we are brought back to our choice.

Continue to limit freedom in the hope of protecting ourselves, or risk our lives by maintaining and expanding it? We have a proud history of defending freedom on the battlefield. Now we must show reactionaries around the world that there is no profit in punishing those who might do harm by limiting the freedom of everyone. We must risk our lives once again by offering freedom to those who would use it to destroy us. We do not have to offer our lives, but we must protect the freedom that might be used by others to take it. What happened in London and New York will happen again, and we must be willing to let it. We cannot search everyone all the time. We cannot watch everyone everywhere. So we must become as selfless as the soldier. We must be willing to die riding on a subway, flying on an airplane or sitting in our homes. We must be willing to sacrifice ourselves to protect that which we hold most dear. We must live free or die.

Re:So what's the point?

[KDR_11k]

At least you can wear Guy Fawkes masks while doing it.

Re:So what's the point?

[JimBobJoe]

Then why are you doing it?

It's *not* for preventing terrorism.

Terminal 5 mixes international passengers and domestic passengers into one area. This system hypothetically prevents people who just got off of an international flight from getting on to a domestic flight and not going through immigration.

I have heard there's a terminal at Gatwick that does the same thing, but they only check passports manually, no biometric check is used.

You might ask the question--why the hell do they insist on mixing international and domestic passengers? Though I don't know why conclusively, I suspect the main reason is that the BAA (the authority that runs the London Airports) is trying to maximize sales at the retail shops in Terminal 5 (because that's what the BAA is notorious for.) If passengers are separated, shops would lose out on the passengers that are not in that part of the terminal. This way everyone has access to the Cinnabun.

Re:So what's the point?

[Keeper Of Keys]

As a Brit, I envy the differences in policies you're likely to be offered if Obama wins the nomination: on healthcare alone he offers a clear break with the past. Here, nobody with any chance of gaining power ever suggests such a dramatic change, it's always incremental - usually for the worse. This is how we were able to have a report into copyright which essentially said: "everything's fine, but we need tougher penalties for filesharers."

Re:So what's the point?

[Z00L00K]

Some identity papers are better than other. It's very easy to mix up people from areas of the world where those matters are of lesser concern or where the identity papers aren't easily convertible to western standards.

And just because A and B has a great similarity to their identities and papers doesn't necessarily mean that B is using forged identity papers of A. There may have been a mixup somewhere else.

And even if B is used A:s forged papers, who is the terrorist? A may still be the terrorist and B may just be an illegal immigrant that tries to stay afloat. The rest is collateral damage...

Illegal immigrants in general are just trying to get a better life, get out from daily bashing or even survive to live the next day. Sometimes it's necessary to get forged papers to get where you want.

And from a realistic perspective - being an illegal immigrant is unpractical if you are going to perform a terrorist action. It introduces a greater risk getting the plans messed up. Coming in as a student, tourist or a businessman is certainly a much easier way to slip through the net.

But of course - when you are on your final leg of your action it may be useful to use fake identities just to make things harder to wrap up for the authorities. The catch is that using such identities can cause problems if they are detected.

Re:So what's the point?

[buro9]

Civil disobedience doesn't work any more.

If you get arrested, and they charge you some for some piddling small offense, then you've just gone and screwed your freedom to travel permanently.

Any trip this Briton would make to the USA or another country will now not be eligible under Visa Waiver Programs as a criminal record (when not a driving offence) requires that you obtain a visa to travel. The US embassy visa process takes 31 weeks from end to end (starting to gather pre-requisites through to obtaining a B1/B2 visa in your passport).

And to go through that process I'd have to give a foreign government far more information than that which I would have had to give the people at Terminal 5.

Civil disobedience in this day and age just marks you negatively for the rest of your life. Unless the action is large and total, it just wouldn't work. And most people don't want to fight, they want to get on their plane and reach their destination.

I personally think we've long ago crossed the line into being a surveillance world. All countries, not just the UK.

When I go to the US my details are taken, my fingerprints, photos, credit card numbers that were used to book the flight, which hotel I'm staying at, departure date, hire car details.

It already is the case that every move I make I consider the possible future ramifications of that move and how any action now might affect me in 15 years time.

This all reminds me of the Stasi. We're all spying on each other now, and all of that data business and government hold and will use against use. Be it credit refusal, travel restrictions, political control. We're already there.

Re:So what's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

100%. I voted Labour back when Blair first got in in 1997 cos the Tories were pulling all of their authoritarian shit, and "ta da" 10 years on they've merely progressed on to bigger and better (or not) forms of authoritarianism... So, don't tell me there's a electoral way out of this because I won't believe you. Every party talks sweetly to the electorate about how they're going to change things for the better (freedom of information, civil liberties, transparency, etc. etc.) and then does a 100% u-turn when in power. Anyone who believes a Conservative administration would give back all this power over the people is living in fantasy land, we have to take it back, by force if necessary, but preferably by en masse non-cooperation with their fascistic agenda.

Re:So what's the point?

[thsths]

This all reminds me of the Stasi. We're all spying on each other now, and all of that data business and government hold and will use against use. Be it credit refusal, travel restrictions, political control. We're already there. Indeed, and I think it has more to do with communism than most people realise. During the cold war, the western world had a "spiritual" need to demonstrate how open and free they were, compared to the countries in "the other block". Now that communism has collapsed (or is perceived so), there is no longer any pressure to differentiate. Slowly but surely the same methods that we previously despised are being introduced in all western societies.

And the scary part is the word "all". There seems to be no exception, all civilised countries are following the same trend. So you cannot even vote with your feet.

Re:So what's the point?

[mpe]

Then why are you doing it? It seems like they're just trying to get the citizens used to these kinds of abuses so that when they do start cross-checking and retaining data indefinitely nobody will be able to tell the difference, or care.

Which makes a lot more sense than the daft claim that it's to stop passenger subsitution between check in and boarding.

Re:So what's the point?

[mpe]

Terminal 5 mixes international passengers and domestic passengers into one area. This system hypothetically prevents people who just got off of an international flight from getting on to a domestic flight and not going through immigration.

Don't they have tickets and boarding passes?

Re:So what's the point?

[ultranova]

I wonder how long nearly meaningless elections will continue to make people believe that they actually have some kind of voice in their government?

Forever. It's a pleasant lie, a bit like "I will start dieting just after I've eaten this pack of chips". And bad things only happen to terrorists, sexual offenders, and other such people; never mind that peeing in the bushes sn a "sexual offense" nowadays, you can't very well stand up to them without being a bleeding-heart liberal fool at best and a terrorist child molester at worst.

That's the fun part about being "though on crime": it lets you to label all your opponents as criminal sympthasizers. Whip people to a frenzy, and you can get them to root for anything, just as long as they feel tough and righteous doing so.

Re:So what's the point?

[Anne Thwacks]

Then why are you doing it? I

You obviously do not live in the UK.

The idea is that anyone going by car, and not by plane, must be doingso to conceal their fingerprints - thus providing supporting evidence to the argument that all car users are criminals - which is a fundamental plank of the present government's policies.

Re:So what's the point?

[mpe]

Britain went through so many terrorist attacks via the IRA. Why do a couple of idiot doctors setting their cars on fire provoke this sort of response? Insane. Bring back thatcher!

Whatever her faults she didn't push this kind of nonsense even after surviving a (real) terrorist attack.

Re:So what's the point?

[Znork]

Then why are you doing it?

Hmm, we're not even reading the slashdot snip these days? I must've missed the memo, this will improve my opinionating efficiency :).

In case we're still reading the comments, the reason they state here makes it sound like it's intended to ensure the person who checks in is the one who boards.

Of course, you're still most likely right, they'll just start storing it anyway. And 'not shared with law enforcement' should probably be continued with 'but shared with security services, foreign agencies, whatever hackers have hacked our systems, whoever stole Jimmy's laptop, anyone picking up the couriers lost package and anyone rummaging through our trash'.

Re:So what's the point?

[DKlineburg]

Scary, but true. I worked for a security company that was hired by another company for security. The higher ups did background checks, and part of that was to look into things such as myspace. some 5 years after a post had been put into mysapce, the person in question was out of college (a lot do stupid things in college) and on with his life. Yet when the parent company read the post that was 5 years old from bygone days? The employee was basicly harrased about it and put under a microscope to see if anything about it was left. Scary to think that a random forum post from the old days when you have grown up and no longer think like you did when you were a child can have such ramifications that you will quit a job do to the political pressure from your bosses. Yes, the employee with the myspace page quit within a week of there bringing it up.

Re:So what's the point?

[darien]

Then why are you doing it?

Dude, it's right there in the summary:

To ensure the passenger boarding the aircraft is the same person, the fingerprinting process will be repeated just before they board the aircraft and the photograph will be compared with their face.

It's a strong way of authenticating that the person getting on the plane is the same one who was authorised to do so back at check-in.

Honestly, you lot can't get enough security when it comes to oh-so-precious data, but when there's actual people involved it seems suddenly everybody wants to live in the Wild West.

Re:So what's the point?

[aix tom]

And the scary part is the word "all". There seems to be no exception, all civilised countries are following the same trend. So you cannot even vote with your feet.

Yep. Since there is no place to go anyway, they don't even have to resort to building a Berlin Wall / Iron Curtain around the planet.

Re:So what's the point?

[Cederic]

When I go to the US my details are taken, my fingerprints, photos, credit card numbers that were used to book the flight, which hotel I'm staying at, departure date, hire car details. So don't go.

And stop flying through Heathrow. Refuse to let them take your fingerprints.

It doesn't take many people to start making this stand and the airlines and airports will start complaining to the Government about their reduced revenue.

No civil disobedience required, just a small amount of personal sacrifice. Or are you personally selling out while decrying the rest of us for doing so?

Re:So what's the point?

[LordSnooty]

I can sum it up much more quickly - the technology is available, so they're using it.

I can't help thinking that if intensive information technology was available to Peel's proto-policemen, or to those in charge of cleaning up Gin Lane, they would have used it.

Re:So what's the point?

[Cederic]

If I had absolute certainty that the data collected would be secure then I'd have far fewer issues about it.

The truth is, it wouldn't be secure. Even if (and it's unlikely) the Heathrow systems were secure, it wouldn't be long before the police gain access to that data. Then HMRC. Then every other public sector agency, criminal and person receiving misdirected random post containing CDs.

So no, I can't get enough security when it comes to the precious data. Since the security benefits at the people level are marginal in the extreme I don't perceive any real benefit either.

None of which even matters: I'd rather risk dying in a terror attack than live in fear of one. I'd rather several thousand people a year die in terror attacks than reduce civil liberties to prevent one.

Re:So what's the point?

[Naughty Bob]

it appears that the only way to stop crap like this would be active forms of civil disobedience

Then you get arrested, and even if you are found innocent, or released without charge, they take a DNA sample which stays on record forever (or until the EU save us).

We are fairly far into the rabbit hole at this point.

Re:So what's the point?

[call-me-kenneth]

Perhaps I'm a useful idiot falling into the classic liberal trap :) but, for those of us not especially interested in taking up arms against the state, might I suggest that joining Liberty and/or No2ID? (I might? Why, thank-you. "Hey, why not join Liberty or No2ID?"

Re:So what's the point?

[darien]

Even if (and it's unlikely) the Heathrow systems were secure, it wouldn't be long before the police gain access to that data. Then HMRC. Then every other public sector agency, criminal and person receiving misdirected random post containing CDs.

Well... so? What could they possibly do with a copy of my fingerprints that they can't already do with all the data they have on file about me from sources like my registration of birth, the electoral roll, the Passport Agency, the DVLA...? Even if we presume the worst (in terms of data security) I don't see what the big deal is here.

I'm willing to accept that you'd rather risk dying in a terror attack than live in fear of one, but the point of airport security is that you don't have to do either.

Re:So what's the point?

[Cederic]

Taking fingerprints at the airport is evidence of living in fear, and will not stop terror attacks from killing me.

It fails on all counts.

Re:So what's the point?

[HateBreeder]

How many people do you know who would sacrifice their career or their personal life for this change to happen?

You can't avoid traveling for a "small amount of personal sacrifice" - it's give up your work (which requires you to travel) or give up on that holiday/vacation that you've been waiting for for so many months. These are VERY large sacrifices for no guaranteed success.

Re:So what's the point?

[Cederic]

Finding a job that doesn't require travel to the US isn't so hard. For most people, finding one that does would be rather harder.

Similarly, there are over 200 countries in the world. Go to two new ones every year on holiday. Let me know when you run out and need to visit the US.

These aren't major sacrifices. And yeah, I do know people that have made them.

Re:So what's the point?

[Builder]

So how do you propose I travel for work then? Losing my job is not a 'small amount of personal sacrifice'. It means losing my house, my car and probably my wife.

Re:So what's the point?

[leenks]

Hell no. The sooner the welfare state is reformed the better. I'm sick of people I know that genuinely need support (Downs, CGD, dementure, chronic arthritis, etc) not getting it and all of the little 14 year old shits from the neighbouring estates getting council properties - or better still, NEW built housing association flats.

My father works in a particularly bad secondary school in the area and the career aspiration of many of the teenage girls is to get pregnant as soon as they can - and they are OPEN about this with everyone. We are now on a second generation of people that haven't had to work as a result of entering welfare support because of the economy and reforms in the 70s and 80s, and its not doing us any good. The majority of people don't want to learn, nobody has any respect for other people or property, and everything is just getting a mess.

Looking back at documentaries or sitcoms/soaps that demonstrated social issues from 1950-1980 is really quite interesting. How I'd love to experience some those problems over the current situation.

Re:So what's the point?

[Archtech]

Freedom has always been worth *other people* dying for.

Think it through. If you're dead, are you free? More to the point, do you care? Not much.

Re:So what's the point?

[icebrain]

Similarly, there are over 200 countries in the world. Go to two new ones every year on holiday. I wish I could afford to go to one country (other than mine) every year, let alone two different ones every year.

Re:So what's the point?

[LordVader717]

Why not vote for the third biggest party in the UK, which has what you're looking for right in their name? At least you have a reasonable choice in political parties.

Re:So what's the point?

[magarity]

They are only doing this at Heathrow so any bad men can just hop on the shuttle bus and fly from Gatwick
 
LHR is only the *first* airport to roll it out; Gatwick and some others are close behind. And notice the clever way the new terminal was designed to handle both international and domestic flights so that this sort of thing would be required. The need is to prevent international transfer fliers to instead transfer to fly into a small local UK airport and have free roam of the country. Of course this was though of when the plans were on the drawing board but not released until now when the thing is already built and getting ready to open. Truly insidious. Why the Brits keep re-electing the socialist Labor party is a mystery. Throughout its entire history socialism has always led to oppressive governments.

Re:So what's the point?

[cliffski]

This is for domestic flights in the UK. the UK is SMALL. I can drive to Scotland in about a day, if I meet no traffic and I get up early. Last time I went on holiday within the UK (to Scotland) I got a sleeper train. it was as cheap, less hassle and way more comfortable than flying, and did my bit for less carbon emissions at the same time. And I didn't need to get treated like a terrorist to catch the train.

I don't holiday in the USA any more, because I won't visit a country that treats me like a terrorist on my holidays. I never flew internally in the UK anyway, but I'm even more determined not to do so now.
You can even get an overnight train from London to Venice. There is literally no need for 90% of the flights UK travellers take.

Re:So what's the point?

[__aapspi39]

I thought we needed to shed our civil liberties in order to win the war on terror; if it turns out that the real enemy are the single mums, maybe there's some clever way of targeting all the surveillance on them?

Re:So what's the point?

[zippthorne]

Yeah, 'cause nothing says "individualism" like wearing a mass-produced piece of cheap movie swag with a bunch of angsty teenagers.

Re:So what's the point?

[nurb432]

The point is to track ( and in turn control ) the populace.

"terrorism prevention" is just the excuse to get the sheep to accept it, or if they did a real good job marketing, want it.

Re:So what's the point?

[PReDiToR]

She is too poorly to do the job now ...

Going home to Dennis.

Funny thing is, a lot of people thought she was too poorly to do it in the first place, only at that time it wasn't anything physical.

Re:So what's the point?

[vrai]

Because the third biggest party is a schizophrenic mess. If it was just the Liberal Party and followed the policy ideas laid out in the Orange Book, I would vote for them at every opportunity. As it stands the Liberal Democrats can't decide if they are truly Liberal or are actually Social Democrats (i.e. socialists). Depending on who's in charge and what's in the papers, the party seems to be trying to occupy the entire political spectrum. How can one be expected to vote for a party that's probably performed a policy volte-face during the walk to the polling station?

Frankly, all the major (and most of the minor) parties in the UK occupy the same ground. Those that don't tend to be extremists (e.g. the BNP) or one issue parties (e.g. UKIP). Some combination of the Tories and the Lib Dems would be the ideal solution: the low taxes and minimal market interference of the post-ERM Tories, combined with the social liberalism and non-parochial attitudes of the Liberals. A true alternative to the ultra-centralising, outright authoritarian "Labour" Party.

Zombie Lloyd George for PM!

Re:So what's the point?

[Original Replica]

it's give up your work (which requires you to travel) or give up on that holiday/vacation that you've been waiting for for so many months. These are VERY large sacrifices for no guaranteed success.

If you consider those to be "VERY large sacrifices" then you have become the coddled little sheep your masters want you to be. What would Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Churchill have to say about the size of these sacrifices. Part of the reason we see freedoms disappearing so quickly in the western world is because modern western people think an inconvenience is too great a sacrifice. All progress and change carry a large measure of inconvenience in their early stages.

Re:So what's the point?

[HateBreeder]

Well, you need to measure the ratio of what you have to lose compared to the effort you need to put to change it.

These are large sacrifices if all they can achieve is a "little" bit more privacy. The government already took my fingerprints when I got my visa and when i got drafted to the military. Them having another copy of my fingerprints, is no big deal to me.

So why would I risk my career and vacations for that?

If you were talking about a TRUE revolution... then that's something entirely different. But I remain unconvinced of the importance of these acts, for now - and until that changes - these inconveniences will continue being VERY large sacrifices.

Re:So what's the point?

[markxz]

The reason that domestic passengers need to be kept identifiable is that they will be mixing with passengers connecting from incoming flights. Unlike the US (and smaller British airports) these passengers do not need to go through immigration (provided they are connecting to a flight that with a destination outwith the Common Travel Area and do not leave the terminal building).

The other option would be to have a small lounge dedicated to domestic passengers. This would probably be a fairly dull and dismal area to wait in, when compared to the full departure area of the main terminal. The airport operator wants as many people to be able to visit the shops as possible.

Gatwick airport seems to manage to operate a similar arrangement using only a photograph, so the use of fingerprints seems to be a bit overkill.

When travelling within the UK a passport is not required (although photo ID often is) so most passengers will not have their passports to hand.

Re:So what's the point?

[ILongForDarkness]

Yep. No one will dispute the need from "proper" security in airports but this is getting a little ridiculous. Already if you are doing an internal flight (especially in countries this small) you spend more time getting to the airport, waiting (because you are early) and going though the security screens. Now your going to have to line up and get finger printed too. Great that is what airports need another line.

Re:So what's the point?

[ManxStef]

If you get arrested, and they charge you some for some piddling small offense, then you've just gone and screwed your freedom to travel permanently.

Don't forget, too, that after arrest they take your DNA and it stays on the register permanently, regardless of whether you're convicted or not, so after this event you're treated as a suspect in every crime that's checked against this database - innocent until proven guilty, my arse. Let's hope false positives, poor sampling techniques, theft of this highly personal information and any other troubling issues are rare events, eh?!

Re:So what's the point?

[Seraphim_72]

Its called altruism - try it out some time, it really washes the taste of cynicism out of your mouth.

Sera

Re:So what's the point?

[tom's a-cold]

If you view it from the idea of making people used to the idea of being bullied and controlled then it makes perfect sense.

Yeah, I was recently in a conversation about Heathrow where we speculated that they should hire Temple Grandin to re-engineer the queues. You'll never even notice the man with the bolt gun at the end.

Re:So what's the point?

[ubermiester]

Freedom has always been worth *other people* dying for.

Think it through. If you're dead, are you free? More to the point, do you care? Not much. So my guess is that you don't have any kids. I can also surmise that you don't really care much about other people in general. In fact, I would be willing to bet that you don't like other people very much at all.

But even beyond that, I would wager that you have not considered your own death as an inevitability, and that you have a certain amount of choice as to how you live your life. Look back and think of all the people you respect and admire. Did they do everything strictly for themselves? Or did they realize that contributing to the lives of others can offer immediate rewards?

You are correct to point out that dying for the freedom is to die for the freedom of others, but what do you have that others have died for? Do you thank them and return the favor by adopting the ethic that made their sacrifice pay off for you? Or do you scorn their stupidity and spit in their faces while enjoying what they have given you?

If you live it strictly for yourself, well then fuck you - I hope you die face down in a ditch with your pants around your ankles and your dignity stripped away like so much torn polyester. But if there is some part of your soul that needs to connect and contribute to the society from which you derive so much benefit, than perhaps should reconsider the rather grim and destructive attitude you are taking at the moment. The collective selflessness of strangers makes up something greater than the sum of its parts. It's like an insurance policy that provides both a short term dividend and long term protection against whatever oppression you may face. You need that selflessness. Without it, you will find the world around you quite hostile indeed.

Are you an embarrassed and anonymous leech, or are you a proud contributer to the benefit of your fellow human beings?

Re:So what's the point?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If losing your job is going to cost you that much, you really need to be taking steps already, starting with finding a wife who wants more than your wealth and making more realistic credit arrangements. A whole load of people are going to lose their jobs through no fault of their own over the next few years as the economic downturn bites, and unless you're in a very few essential industries or hold a very privileged position, you could be unlucky just like the rest of us.

Of course, it could be that not travelling to certain places in this way wouldn't really cost you your job, your house, your car and your wife, and that you're just exaggerating to try and gain sympathy for your point. In any case, most people do not have to travel for their jobs, so even if you genuinely do, your argument does not mean the millions who don't should give in. As others have said, it doesn't even take that much for airlines and such to get the message and stop co-operating with police state schemes like this. If those who care enough got themselves organised and even 5–10% of customers refused to take a leisure flight to a foreign destination this year, perhaps going by ship or train instead or holidaying in their own country, it would make a substantial dent in several major airlines' bottom lines. If even 10% of those 5–10% bothered to write to the airlines saying that they would have liked to go but refused to submit to offensive security measures, the point would be made more than clearly enough.

The problem is just that right now, we're still in the bending over phase of society's development. The real impact of measures like this is, for the most part, confined to a relatively small number of people who have been seriously damaged. But a few thousand more "terrorist suspects" with Islamic-sounding names getting arrested here, a few thousand more people getting hassled by overpowered policemen there, a few thousand more wondering why they have to give up their soda to get on a plane when they can buy another much more expensive bottle of the same soda right past the security checkpoint over there... In five years time, this will have become a big election issue in most of these countries, people in general will be more aware of the dangers and the scope for abuse as they or those they care about have been personally affected, and I rather suspect that several governments will have fallen as a consequence.

Re:So what's the point?

[jez9999]

Losing my job is not a 'small amount of personal sacrifice'. It means losing my house, my car and probably my wife.

Well, at least there's one benefit.

Re:So what's the point?

[jez9999]

Genuine question: Please tell me which policies the BNP officially hold that make them extremist.

Re:So what's the point?

[autophile]

OMG, srsly, that is the best rationale for it ever. I hereby propose to call that the Only One Cinnabon Conspiracy!

Re:So what's the point?

[jez9999]

Why the Brits keep re-electing the socialist Labor party is a mystery.

I can reveal the answer to that mystery. It's our electoral system.

Re:So what's the point?

[vrai]

How about wanting to ban all Muslims (of which there are about 2 million in the UK) from flying in or out of Britain?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/05/uk.advertising

Re:So what's the point?

[mdwh2]

I don't agree at all - the Liberal Democrats have policies that are just as well defined as any other party.

And it is simply false to say that they occupy the same ground - with respect to authoritarianism (what we're discussing here), Nick Clegg has emphasised the party's liberal policies. I'm not sure what you mean by "Depending who's in charge" - Nick Clegg is in charge.

So who do you vote for?

Some combination of the Tories and the Lib Dems would be the ideal solution

In the UK, we vote for MPs, not parties. So vote for either a Tory or a Lib Dem MP depending on which in your constituency fits that ideal solution. Better that than complaining on Slashdot that there's no way out of authoritarianism.

Re:So what's the point?

[magarity]

And I thought the US electoral system sometimes came up with annoying results. Everyone in the US who thinks that should see the parent post's link for some serious electoral madness!

Re:So what's the point?

[algoa456]

May be worth it if you really feel strong enough - matyrdom works for Jihadis why not you.

Re:So what's the point?

[rtb61]

So why are these people on welfare, why do they not contribute, why don't they learn, why don't they work. It is quite simple because they are incapable of doing so, they do lack the necessary mental skills and drive to be an effective part of the current type of society. So why pay them welfare, because on the whole they do less damage that way. Otherwise they simply resort to criminal activities. So while they still will commit criminal acts the extent of their criminal activity is reduced. Although sometimes I would think it might be better that for just a while the welfare state was suspended for just a while, so the criminal types could shoot all the reactionary red neck idiots while robbing them, thin down the idiotic myopically greed driven population but of course the criminals would also target the more clear thinking, socially conscious amongst the population.

Now all we need to do, is get the religious right wing out of that simple solution so that a suitable range of low cost pacifying substances (which would limit the drive for criminal activity) be made freely available to that population, substances that would simultaneously voluntarily limit their fecundity, there is no sane reason that the problem should continue to propagate into future generations. Of course you like some other reactionary individuals prefer the slave labour, chain gang and whip approach. For ownership to exist every person on this planet is entitled to a free subsistence life style, if they want more they have to contribute to the society that they are a part of, however at no stage and for no reason are human beings to be considered slaves to society, we have had quite enough of that, thank you very much.

Re:So what's the point?

[Archtech]

Five paragraphs of personal abuse, without one single reasoned argument.

I really hit a nerve there.

Re:So what's the point?

[Archtech]

"Its called altruism - try it out some time, it really washes the taste of cynicism out of your mouth".

That's really my point. Altruism, if carried to the point of dying for the freedom of others, leaves you unable to taste anything - cynicism included.

If you read my original post carefully, you would notice that I did not say there was anything wrong with dying for the liberty of others. Nor did I say I was opposed to the idea. All I did was to point out that, in dying, you give up *everything*. You will not be able to enjoy freedom, or the satisfaction of knowing you have done good to others, or the satisfaction of seeing them enjoy their liberty. What's more, I think it very unlikely that you will derive any satisfaction while you are dying either. You will be too busy feeling agony and desperation - and, very probably, regret.

None of this means I would necessarily refuse to die in such a way myself. I really don't know if I would have enough courage - and that is true of most of us. It's better to confront reality honestly than to swagger and boast about your readiness to do one of the hardest things known to man.

Re:So what's the point?

[vrai]

But how long will Clegg be in charge for? His politics aren't bad, he was one of the Orange Book authors after all; but his support from the rest of the party is not exactly whole hearted and universal. The fundamental problem is that the Liberal Democrats are trying to be all things to all people and in doing so there policies are an inconsistent mess. They need to decide whether they are Labour-lite or liberals.

I will be voting for whoever is most likely to unseat the incumbent apparatchik. Sadly this is likely to be some policy free rent-a-Tory. On the upside, even a Tory is likely to vote against the introduction of ID cards. So they won't be quite as awful as Linton.

As for "we vote for MPs, not parties": this is one of the many problems with our electoral system. An MP doesn't have a great deal of power in their constituency. That lies with central government as a whole and the local authority; MPs are nothing but bodies who vote in Parliament. As long as the whip system persists and free votes are a rarity, the MP's own values will be subservient to those of their party. Even more damaging is the first past the post system which tends towards large majorities. If the ruling party votes as a single block (which they usually do) then the opposition might as well not be there. What is needed is a system that produces coalition governments and so forces the largest party to reach compromises with one or more opposition parties. Any system that allows the party with 40% of the popular vote to exercise 100% of the power is a poor system, but there's no incentive for governments to change it as they benefit from its existence once in power.

Re:So what's the point?

[richlv]

it sounds like your wife has a price.

Re:So what's the point?

[leenks]

No, they are capable of working. If they are capable of breeding, driving, stealing, bodging repairs to cars, etc, they can work. And paying benefits doesn't stop crime. And no, I don't like the slave labour, chain gang and whip approach. I just work fucking hard in three jobs and don't see why I should have to subsidise people to live without working on the same new housing development as me when I'm working my arse off to struggle to live here. I want to have kids at some point, but I can't see any way that I could possibly afford to do that in the next 5-10 years, yet these people are quite happy to sponge off everyone else to achieve it.

Re:So what's the point?

[ubermiester]

Abuse? In what way did I abuse you? By questioning your ethics? By asking if you feel any obligation to those who have willingly put their lives in jeopardy to fight for freedoms we are now so dangerously taking for granted?

I am not talking about committing suicide in the name of the cause, something with which we have become far too familiar. I am talking about risking your life for something that will benefit not only you, should you live, but those around you who have made the same commitment. Here's an analogy you might understand.

Perhaps you work for a small startup. Perhaps it is a key point in the company's development, and everyone commits to putting in extra time and effort so the company can reach limitless heights. Would you work as hard if you knew that many of the people around you were putting in only the minimum amount of effort necessary, while standing to reap the same rewards in the end?

It was this scenario that elicited my rather crude description of the fate I would wish on someone who enjoys the benefits of other's sacrifices while refusing to make their own. And for that I apologize.

But it is poor reasoning like yours, i.e., that you would exchange freedoms gained by other people's sacrifice for some vague promise of security, that has led to the current state of affairs. My original point was that we must jealously guard our freedoms with our lives, or we will have neither, (to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin). Sacrifice is necessary to maintain our freedom in the the face of forces on both "sides" that would take them away as a means of control. I am not asking that anyone blow themselves up, I am simply asking people to take on more risk in order to protect something so precious that it has taken thousands of years to achieve.

Those who would kill morning commuters en-mass are attempting to prove something to god. They strive to demonstrate that they are so committed to the cause that we have no choice but to take them seriously and recognize their claims of moral authority. They have, in fact, been so successful they have us running scared. So scared that we are slowly beginning to accept the false notion that we are better off allowing the watchful eye of our "protectors" to peer into every aspect of our lives.

To paraphrase Tony Blair, we must demonstrate that we love freedom more than they love exercising control. That we will ignore their threats, and that we will sacrifice whatever is necessary to defend what we have gained.

Reasonable enough?

Re:So what's the point?

[stonertom]

Dunno how I'd feel about going to war for any cause... but I know I'm cool with the odds of getting "terrorismed". There was a more persistent risk from the IRA when I was a kid, evacuations etc pretty often, and less crazy overreaction. Life isn't ever risk-free, you should at least be able to choose your risks, and personally "extremists" worry me less than a "government"

Re:So what's the point?

[Builder]

Screw you! Just because you hippies are all over the carbon emissions thing, why should I give up the car?

Oh... wait... you meant... Doh!

Re:So what's the point?

[KDR_11k]

Individualism? I don't think civil disobedience is about that.

Re:So what's the point?

[kylegordon]

Amen to that. My first stipulation when flying abroad is to avoid London. Not just because it's a disaster zone, but because it's sheer mayhem. There's plenty of other transport hubs (now there's something that should've been abandoned years ago in favour of point to point travel), such as Schipol, Dubai, Paris, etc

I've yet to come across an airport more pitiful than Heathrow...

Kyle

WTF.

[headkase]

What the hell is going on these last few years?! Ever since some wackos killed less people than die from AIDS in a day the US, UK, and AU seem hell bent racing each other to see who can become China first! It's time to face the fact: the terrorists have won. Not flamebait, just a sober realization.

Re:WTF.

[QuantumG]

Politicians have learned that "we can keep you safe" sells these days.

Re:WTF.

[Ngarrang]

You can blame the citizens of each country. They are allowing it. Oh, sure, some individuals will complain that THEY did not allow it, but what did they do to try and stop these measures as each one as each one has crept into our lives? Most of us are guilty of allowing our rights to privacy to be steadily eroded in the name of security by those that only wish to cement their future authority.

What is next? Retinal scans and Blood samples? Forced embedding of an ID chip?

Well, I admit to be one of those people who complain, yet do little or nothing. I have not written by state rep or senator, I don't organize rallies. Heck, I haven't even created a web page to at least advertise my disapproval.

Re:WTF.

[timmarhy]

there's a reason you haven't done anything - because it hasn't affected you. for the most part civil liberties types over hype these kinds of things and thats why they get ignored.

once enough people get pissed off by it then we will see change, until then just pray you aren't one of the unlucky ones.

Re:WTF.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens have no choice but to allow these measures -- they have no say in the matter and no real voice other than through protest and possibly voting for a particular political party to lead/control the country every few years. So I don't think citizens are entirely to blame for the current state of affairs.

Any refusal to comply with government enforced measures is not a great idea, and usually ends up with a nice trip to jail and/or a criminal record or, at the very least, being inconvenienced by the authorities. Just try refusing to take your shoes off at the airport and see what happens!
People generally don't like to get in trouble and so generally comply with the rules.

Re:WTF.

[necro2607]

That "terrorist act" is just used as an excuse/"reason" for them to come down hard on our freedoms and do whatever they feel like doing, in the name of "safety" and "security".. That's it. Just a bullshit excuse for raping the shit out of ordinary peoples' freedoms and liberties.

This scenario of them fingerprinting for domestic flights is a GREAT WAY to desensitize people to such "security measures", so they can take it yet another step further a little while into the future.

As usual, it's a slippery-as-hell slope, and it doesn't seem like people are really standing up against it. Yeah, we rant and bitch online but... like that does a damned thing.

Man, all it does is fill me with such animosity and pessemism. I just feel pissed off. My outlook is constantly degraded and made to be more negative, every day, due to this kind of messed up crap happening. Don't even know what else to say, I just hate it so much.

Re:WTF.

[megaditto]

But I still don't think that answers GP's question: why is this happening now instead of back when IRA blew up bomb and killed people pretty much weekly?

Is it the teletubbies instilling their gay agenda into the young minds? All the mercury in marmite rotting their brains? The hot East-European chicks infecting the populate with the highly contageous BendOverForAuthoritis?

Why are Britons turning into a bunch of craven pussy chickenshits (for lack of a better word)?

Re:WTF.

[mrbluze]

The terrorists have won Indeed. But who are the terrorists? I know who I'm afraid of, and it's not some long-bearded renal failure patient wasting away in a desert cave on the other side of the planet.

Re:WTF.

[Fjandr]

You fail at reading comprehension. I don't think "some whackos" killed nearly a million people. It also said "in a day," not "in a year." Even then, the statement did not say "AIDS deaths in the US," but rather encompassed all AIDS deaths. That's a lot of errors to fit into a post that is basically one sentence. Bravo.

Re:WTF.

[jamstar7]

Because fear sells these days.

Re:WTF.

[Admiral Ag]

What are they supposed to do? It's all very well for young people to talk about overthrowing the entire political class, because that is who is driving this agenda. It's not one party or one side, but all the mainstream political entities that are for this Orwellian bullshit. Bob the baby boomer doesn't like this, but he's not going to risk his investments, property and future by supporting some radical movement for "freedom" that might decide to make the economy more like Sweden's or Cuba's (and our Lords and Masters would do anything to stop that).

We should be absolutely clear that voting won't work. Those who have the greatest power in our societies have the largest stake in the current system. That's why a political party that ran on a platform of opposing this would find itself marginalized by the news media, or otherwise hog-tied so that it became unelectable. Plus you have all the people like Bob, who are all for it unless they have to make a personal sacrifice.

Yes, it sucks.

Re:WTF.

[ScrewMaster]

Whenever globespanning Empires crumble, the residue of their greatness is usually somewhat less than impressive. I must say I'm bitterly disappointed in the direction their government has taken, especially given their history ... but no more so than I am in my own government, my own fellow citizens.

Re:WTF.

[Admiral Ag]

They have always known, as Frank Herbert did, that fear is the mind killer.

Those who are afraid will hand over their liberties to the strong leader who promises to rid them of whatever made them afraid. However, the leader himself has an endless stock of new things to be feared, so the state of emergency persists perpetually. Why else do you think that conservative politicians always run on a law and order platform. Even when crime has been decreasing, they will rename or reimagine some common crime in a way that terrifies people. e.g. "home invasions". Goebbels would be proud.

Re:WTF.

[ZDRuX]

But I still don't think that answers GP's question: why is this happening now instead of back when IRA blew up bomb and killed people pretty much weekly?

Because people wouldn't put up with it back then. The government needed a catalyst for propell this Orwellian state onto people. 9/11 did the job quite nicely. If you look closely, all this "total control" has been creeping into our lives quite slowly over the last 50 years, but it really accelerated after 9/11.

If the U.S./UK governments are responsible for 9/11 is beyond the scope of this reply, but you at least have to marvell at the inguinity of it all, and how it all seemleslly fell into place. Problem-Reaction-Solution, the rest is up to you to figure out people. That is all.

Re:WTF.

[zippthorne]

The thing is, though, what the hell are you supposed to do if everyone else is going blindly down that road? What the hell can you do beyond voting (with your fingers crossed), letters, blog posts, debates, books, and shouting in the streets (the last few of which may require a time investment that takes away from your source of income, and therefore food)?

Are you supposed to resort to assassinations or something? Booth killed Lincoln, and look how well that worked out for the south: over a decade of punishing "reconstruction." Probably single-handedly stalled race relations for nearly a century, too.

Re:WTF.

[QuantumG]

In western liberal democracies we used to believe ourselves immune to such scare tactics as we are educated enough to see the false threats from the real ones.. so politicians didn't really play these games. But since 9/11 people have lost all concept of this and so when politicians play the boogie-man card people listen.. whereas before 9/11 they would mock.

Re:WTF.

[atomic brainslide]

the US and its "allies" are doing this because they "won" the Cold War. What happens to all that power and money that these nations invested in their old war/intel programs? they find new places to use those resources and new jobs for all those government employees and contractors to keep the employment figures up. what's sad is that the current US administration feels that they have the right to police the world and to impose their "moral authority" onto citizens of other nations.

Re:WTF.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever...the sheeple on here will mod up anything no matter how stupid it is... the US, UK and AU are like China. Yep. Just like China. No difference whatever. Fucking loonies..

Re:WTF.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why you are a troll. I agree. At this point, since 9/11, the only thing the citizenry can do is protest. That does nothing though. Maybe violent protest? Is everyone here ready to completely change their way of life and possibly die for the causes they speak of? That is what it is going to take. When all of you are ready to put down your latte and maybe have to find alternative ways of getting food/water/transportation for a while then let me know. There is not a government on this planet who is ready to listen to their population. Voting might help but only if you can get a candidate who has a spine. Good luck with that. As soon as we see one speak up they are laughed off the stage by the same people who are screaming for change.

Re:WTF.

[ghyd]

Why are Britons turning into a bunch of craven pussy chickenshits (for lack of a better word)?
Because that's what also happens to their cousins from the other side of the Atlantic ? patriot act ? Irak war ? border fence ?

Re:WTF.

[jacquesm]

see, that's the nice thing about the whole scheme. You'll just be labelled a terrorist and be used as the reason to instill even more draconian measures...

Re:WTF.

[zitsky]

I'm sorry, but it's this kind of apathy that allows these things to happen. People that say "voting won't work" or "why should I get involved" should not be surprised when their government requires fingerprints for travel, puts insecure chips in their passports or uses their country's telecommunications companies to spy on them.

Some generations have stood up against their government and protested (remember the Boston Tea Party, remember the 1960's?). If you don't like the current system, do something about it!

Re:WTF.

[xushi]

"I have not written by state rep or senator" Will not make any difference whatsoever... "I don't organize rallies" Will not make any difference whatsoever... "Heck, I haven't even created a web page to at least advertise my disapproval." Will not make any difference whatsoever... ...

Re:WTF.

[Admiral Ag]

I said that voting won't work. There are alternatives to voting. The Boston Tea Party was not a vote. How about some of our American friends dump their politicians in Boston Harbour (although the truly cruel and sadistic would make them drink some of it).

Re:WTF.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear no man. I am wary of government. Of course, I am very wary of global jihad, which has pledged global chaos in the name of its god, and sent off one helluva opening salvo in the 21st Century war between civilizations on 9/11/2001.

Re:WTF.

[One Childish N00b]

The fear (for the sensible people, anyway) isn't that we are *currently* just like China, it's that the difference between ourselves and China is slowly but surely being diminished. No sensible person would argue that Britain, the US or Australia are 'just like China' but, by the same token, nobody would argue that we are more free than we were ten years ago either.

The attitude of "oh, we aren't as bad as China, so we're doing just fine" is a poisonous and pervasive one; China should not be the measuring stick for civil rights, or a media boogieman so they can tell us how free we are while slowly eroding our personal freedoms; China should be a looming spectre of what we could, if current trends continue, very well become.

Re:WTF.

[Anne Thwacks]

Ever since some wackos killed less people than die from AIDS in a day the US,

Actually, AIDS doesnt kill a lot of people in the UK. However, armed police have killed more people in the last five years than terrorists have, and our police are not routinely armed.

The government ARE the terrorists.

Re:WTF.

[mpe]

That "terrorist act" is just used as an excuse/"reason" for them to come down hard on our freedoms and do whatever they feel like doing, in the name of "safety" and "security"..

With little evidence that these actions actually do what they claim to do. Or even any critical analysis of them.

That's it. Just a bullshit excuse for raping the shit out of ordinary peoples' freedoms and liberties.

It's all to easy for people reaching this conclusion to be dismissed as "nutjob conspiracy theorists" however. Which is ironic considering that virtually all of the terrorist threats which the UK and US government have turned out to be far fetched conspiracy theories.

Re:WTF.

[Stanislav_J]

The thing is, though, what the hell are you supposed to do if everyone else is going blindly down that road?

Ain't a hell of a lot any individual can do. There are so few left who care about what's going on. Another poster was right about civil disobedience no longer being an option. For that to work, you need a good percentage of the populace united behind a common cause. The number of people who actually (a)understand and (b)care about what's taking place are an increasingly small minority who are more often viewed as wackos, rabble rousers, conspiracy theorists, and so forth. We have a failing educational system that doesn't even begin to teach people to think for themselves, popular media that is largely corporate owned and afraid to rock the boat, an economy that has resulted in an ever shrinking middle class who are desperate to keep their jobs and benefits at any cost, and a culture that blinds are distracts us with the largely meaningless and shallow forms of "entertainment" that prevail. Sure, those few of us who still believe in something better and nobler can stand our ground in protest, but all it will ultimately get you is a lot of trouble, ostracization, and perhaps a nice little criminal record to fuck up your future.

I just turned half a century old, and I think within my lifetime things are going to go from bad to worse. I no longer fear death, because I'm not sure I want to be around to experience what's coming after that.

Re:WTF.

[oodaloop]

Really? The terrorists have won? I guess Al Qaeda will be claiming victory and going home any day now. I'm no fan of intrusive governments, searches without warrants, etc, but Al Qaeda and their affiliates don't give a DAMN what laws we pass. They want us destroyed and will fight until, "the flag of Islam flies over the White House," as more than one senior leader has put it. They don't care how long it takes, they don't care how many of them are killed, and they certainly don't care if a few Americans or Brits have their rights infringed in the process. This is a war to the death, and we're not taking it very seriously. Bin Laden even said that he had to do 9/11 because we didn't listen to any of the previous attacks. Each one was bigger than anything they did before, and now they're working on nukes. They've warned us each time they were going to attack, but no one cared. They've warned us they're going to use nukes. But hey, since some laws requiring travelers use fingerprints was passed, I'm sure they'll abandon those plans. They already won.

Re:WTF.

[BeerCat]

If the U.S./UK governments are responsible for 9/11 is beyond the scope of this reply

They were certainly responsible for wanting something like it to happen - From 2000 onwards, China was being named as "the new enemy", and goaded into doing "something" - for example, the US Spy Plane 'accidentally' going into Chinese airspace. However, it looks as though they were wanting something along the lines of a maniac with an ICBM, as one of the first pieces of legislation pushed through after the attacks was to restart the Space based anti-missile stuff "to prevent this happening again". Except that no spaced based system will work against aircraft...

Re:WTF.

[Wowsers]

Politicians have learned that "we can keep you safe" sells these days. Not with me. My grandparents fighting in World War 2, and others grandparents dying for freedom and democracy in WW2 is what kept my parents and myself safe since WW2. Governments of today lie when they say they can keep you safe. Unfortunately there are too many morons out there that think otherwise, and keep voting these moronic quasi-Communist governments into power. Even vote-rigging like in banana-republics in elections is seen as normal in these alleged democracies.

Re:WTF.

[drsmithy]

But I still don't think that answers GP's question: why is this happening now instead of back when IRA blew up bomb and killed people pretty much weekly?

The most obvious reason is because it's only really become technologically and economically feasible in the last decade.

There are social factors as well, to be sure, but advances in technology are a pretty major part.

Re:WTF.

[Builder]

Let's see... I've written my MP and attended his surgeries. I've got my friends and family about as riled up as I am, and contacting _their_ representatives. I've had flyers printed at my own cost and put them through doors in the neighborhood around election time. I've contact various ministers with regards to bills passing through the system and trying to inform and advise them.

And so far, I've achieved absolutely jack shit.

Re:WTF.

[BarneyL]

Sadly voting in the UK doesn't work, we effectively have two identical centre right parties to choose from come election time. The Liberals seem to do a decent job of sabotaging their own chances any time they look to be gaining ground and the remainder of the parties are largely groups of crackpots and racists or both (with the possible exception of the green party, your vote for them will never get them elected but might make other parties try a little harder to steal it from them).
Add to that a first past the post system that means the present government holds power comfortably with only 35% of the votes or to correct for those that didn't vote at all, only 21% of the elegable population voted for the present Labour government in the UK.
It's a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't situation, you vote and it's taken as a mandate to carry on as is, you don't vote and you are branded apathetic. The only alternative would be a "re-open nominations" type box to vote on, it's been suggested but no one in power would be willing to face the results it produces.

Re:WTF.

[typicallyterrific]

Oh, that's quite easy to answer.

It's only recently that it has become cheap enough to do so. 10, 20, 30 years ago it wasn't as viable to have a camera at every street corner being watched and recorded by a central authority.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that 9/11 took away people's ability to think and fight for civil rights. The matter of the fact is, the vast majority of people can't be bothered to care, and never has. I mean, fully participating in a democratic society is a lot of work. Volunteering for a candidate's campaign is a lot of work, let organising one or actually running for office. Those are the people most likely to actually go to demonstrations and protests, and they are a tiny minority. Everyone else has bills to pay and kids to feed and 2-4 hours of tv/internet/hobbies before they go to bed and start the day again, and the only thing that has ever changed is that the amount of time to yourself and the average income have risen (in the West) in the last 60, 70 years or so. If it doesn't directly affect you, very few people have the drive or the incentive to care.

People in power were busy prosecuting cleaning ladies for being potential communist spies 50 years ago. Do you really think they wouldn't have installed cameras everywhere, or bumped up widespread surveillance, if they only had access to the technology? Not all segments of people in government want this, but the kind of people that do have always been around, and recently in our democracies they've been winning.

Re:WTF.

[BoberFett]

Really? You think this is new since 9/11? Fear mongering has been happening for far longer than that. Go back to the Red Scare, or Reefer Madness.

Re:WTF.

[BoberFett]

Look at what happens when someone speaks the truth in the US. Ron Paul might have a few crazy ideas, but so does John "100-years-in-Iraq" McCain and Mike "I-speak-to-God" Huckabee. But no, it's Paul who's the crackpot, the nutjob, and anybody who supports him is constantly mocked, called a Paulbot and a fool. Apparently speaking to sky-fairies and pining for one hundred years of war is sane, while calling for less government is not.

You're right, voting does work. Too bad most people who vote are stupid.

Re:WTF.

[mgblst]

No, you are completely wrong. It was done 30 year ago, because we didn't have the technology 30 years ago. Now we have the technology to digitally record all sorts of information very easily. Certain people have wanted to do this for a long time, but have been held back. Be assured, if this technology was available back in the day, we would be having this same discussion, just at the pub rather than on slashdot.

Re:WTF.

[jez9999]

Any refusal to comply with government enforced measures is not a great idea, and usually ends up with a nice trip to jail and/or a criminal record or, at the very least, being inconvenienced by the authorities.

Right, and I think the police have a lot to answer for here. I mean, the government are a very small bunch of people, and maybe you can say they are just concentrated evil. That's the nature of the beast. But, the police are from a much wider and more diverse community, supposedly. And yet, not only do they accept and enforce these ever-more-draconian laws, but you regularly hear groups like the ACPO calling for MORE draconian measures; if they had their way, no doubt, there would be a totalitarian state.

This diverse group, called the police, ought to start using their brains, and refusing to enforce certain laws. Stop and search with NO cause for suspicion of criminal activity? Disgusting.

Re:WTF.

[jez9999]

However, armed police have killed more people in the last five years than terrorists have, and our police are not routinely armed.

The government ARE the terrorists.

If you stood up and said that in a loud voice in central London, you might well be arrested. :-S

Re:WTF.

[ncohafmuta]

to be honest, i couldn't care less if they take my fingerprint, embed me with a chip, monitor my phone calls, or whatever. As long as it doesn't slow all my life processes down, in this case, me checking in, getting on the plane, etc.. i dont care.
It should only matter to you if you have something to hide/did something wrong.
If you want stop them from doing this, forget about protests and demonstations, that won't get you anywhere. People have been having things like anti-war protests for decades, where has it gotten us? The government and media saying that the war is unpopular. The sentiment is not working very well at the moment. Write your rep. or senator, they're the people with the only real power to do anything in a republic (this speaking from the USA sense anyway).

-Tony

Re:WTF.

[You ain't seen me!]

What is next? Retinal scans and Blood samples? Forced embedding of an ID chip?
Retinal scans: Just wait till they start using Rectal scans - bend over please sir/madam !

Sure, I believe that.

[palegray.net]

There is no other country in the world that requires passengers travelling on internal flights to be fingerprinted. BAA says the fingerprint data will be destroyed, but the records of who has travelled within the country will not be, and it will provide a rich source of data for the police and intelligence agencies. So these intelligence agencies are perfectly fine with the prospect of not receiving fingerprints when they have already been collected? Where's the evidence these fingerprints are going to be destroyed? Or does it go like this: We destroyed the file containing your fingerprints... but about any copies of the file we really can't speak.

defective by design indeed ...

[siddesu]

"The company said the move had been necessitated by the design of Terminal 5, where international and domestic passengers share the same lounges and public areas after they have checked in. "

Nothing to add here.

Re:defective by design indeed ...

[fyrewulff]

Besides my natural "what the fuck do you need my fingerprints for", it seems it would have honestly been cheaper to segregate the areas instead of having to maintain a fingerprints system for _x_ years.

But then again, maybe it's cheaper to have those systems now. Even one of the local grocery store chains has a check cashing method where you just have to scan your fingerprint.

Re:defective by design indeed ...

[siddesu]

Oh, no doubt it could be cheaper. Especially if the gubbermint would sponsor it. All in the name of national security and safety from the terrorists, naturally.

Re:defective by design indeed ...

[thirty-seven]

international and domestic passengers share the same lounges and public areas after they have checked in

Except why do they need to fingerprint international travellers leaving the country?

Re:defective by design indeed ...

[siddesu]

well, obviously, you just fingerprint everyone. the legal system will tell the guilty apart later.

"Sound bite Security"

[arthurpaliden]

A totally usless security measure. If you want to prevent hijacking of aircraft "reinforce the flight deck door and then lock the flight deck door". This was first recomended in the 1970's and if this recomendation had been followed by the airline industry then 9/11 could never have happened.

Re:"Sound bite Security"

[YrWrstNtmr]

This was first recomended in the 1970's and if this recomendation had been followed by the airline industry then 9/11 could never have happened.

Actually, it probably would have. If the 19 terrorists had gone to the next level, and started killing passengers and stews, one a minute until the cockpit door was opened...how long do you think the pilots would have held out? About 2 mins.
After 9/11, when the standard hijack scenario of "Take me to Farkistan!" went out (or through) the window...different story.

Re:"Sound bite Security"

[arthurpaliden]

Really? Ever try to kill several people with a box cutter in a confined space with dozens of other people around. Besides disiplined air crew would have landed the plane first.

Re:"Sound bite Security"

[OECD]

Actually, it probably would have. If the 19 terrorists had gone to the next level, and started killing passengers and stews, one a minute until the cockpit door was opened...how long do you think the pilots would have held out? About 2 mins.

Not if I was the pilot.

Your larger point stands, and the fact is, of course, that the threat of 9/11 ended in a field in PA.

But that message doesn't help anyone in office, does it?

Re:"Sound bite Security"

[PPCAvenger]

Actually, it probably would have. If the 19 terrorists had gone to the next level, and started killing passengers and stews, one a minute until the cockpit door was opened...how long do you think the pilots would have held out? About 2 mins.

The people hijacking the planes had box cutters. If the door was locked and the procedure was not to open it and they killed a person how long do you think the passengers would have just sat and done nothing against guys with big razor blades? Hardly an imposing weapon against a 200 strong mob backed into a proverbial corner in a struggle for survival.

I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your Orwellian fear and raise you Brazil !!

Re:I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[OECD]

I see your Orwellian fear and raise you Brazil !!

Call. Full Gattica! Woo-hoo!

Re:I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[lgw]

Call. Full Gattica! Woo-hoo! C'mon, it's Gattaca. The whole point of the movie was that GATC are all that mattered in their distopia.

Re:I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[OECD]

Attica! Attica! :P

Re:I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Atticus.

Re:I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[zippthorne]

Gattaca, the movie about genetics for people with twitchy pointer fingers.

I mean, c'mon, drop the second 't' and you've got two triplets.

Re:I see your fear and raise you Brazil !

[UU7]

Dingus maybe..

Private Flights?

[iamhigh]

I might be new, but I know not to read TFA... so I assume this won't/can't possibly apply to private flights? Smart, lets not pursue the most likely mode of transportation for criminals.

Re:Private Flights?

[tweak13]

Why would private flights be at a terminal? If you don't go in the terminal obviously you won't get fingerprinted.

Also, why would private flights be more likely to have criminals aboard? Do you have any idea how much an airplane costs, even to rent? Especially in Europe where they get really screwed over with taxes and user fees. Even crooks have a budget.

Re:Private Flights?

[theeddie55]

there's no reason criminals should take private flights, besides, criminals can travel as long as they don't blow the planes up.

Police World

[kongit]

These measures that are being taken to supposedly make things safer are just getting out of hand. I am getting pissed off, but I am also getting scared. I do not want to live in a police state. And it is getting where there is nowhere to go if my government finally gets too much like a police state. While I don't think that there will be a sudden shift to a police state, it is getting easier and easier for a government to become one. The technology is here and the first steps have been taken. It's just a matter of "Oh they won't mind a little more surveillance." All this "security" does not make me feel any safer: I am more likely to die from a car crash then from a hijacked plane. While it might reduce the risks involved in flying, my number 1 fear while flying is that the plane will crash, and that rarely happens so I am not that afraid of it. There are so many other things to say on this subject. It hasn't gotten to the level of stupidity, but its getting damn close.

Re:Police World

[SlashWombat]

This all just proves that the people "charged with our"security" are fucked in the head!

Now, any terrorist that wants to cause grief in the UK knows that he had better take the channel tunnel, and not fly into Heathrow!

I dont really understand how these things get approved by the relevant authorities either. I mean, surely these people realise that the way society is being driven down the road of extreme paranioa will have very dramatic negative effects on their own children, let alone the "evil" little bastards down the street!

Re:Police World

[mpe]

This all just proves that the people "charged with our"security" are fucked in the head!

This is news exactly how?

Now, any terrorist that wants to cause grief in the UK knows that he had better take the channel tunnel, and not fly into Heathrow!

Or take the ferry or fly to a different airport, even walk/drive over a land border. There's also whatever methods large numbers of people appear to sucessfully use to enter the UK illegally. Of course if they are planning on a suicide attack they are unlikely to care much about their fingerprints being on file anywhere, not having any further use for their fingers! Then there;s the possibility that they might already be in the UK already.

Re:Police World

[jdub_dub]

I suppose you could always start your own airline service or buy your own plane.

It's already started

[g_hill]

They're not waiting for Terminal 5, I was photographed and fingerprinted like a criminal today on my way home from a meeting in Hamburg, via Heathrow Terminal 1. I wasn't happy, why should I as a UK passport holder have my fingerprints taken? It's a police state.

Re:It's already started

[Plutonite]

Take issue with whoever is representing you in parliament/government. If you can't do that (get in touch with elected authority), and if a large number of people can't do that either, democracy has failed.

The internet is a good (or perhaps a bad) way to bring together "large numbers" of unsatisfied people. Market niche: web portal that simplifies concerted efforts to reach government officials in both free and not-so-free nations, divided by locale. You heard it here first.

Re:It's already started

[bdjacobson]

Take issue with whoever is representing you in parliament/government. If you can't do that (get in touch with elected authority), and if a large number of people can't do that either, democracy has failed.

The internet is a good (or perhaps a bad) way to bring together "large numbers" of unsatisfied people. Market niche: web portal that simplifies concerted efforts to reach government officials in both free and not-so-free nations, divided by locale. You heard it here first. This is precisely why they want everybody's fingerprints and photos. Do they have yours? If not, they sure want it. "What is this democracy you speak of? People need to be aware that this is a different time we're living in...we are required to make sacrifices to live in safety." --We hear this so much I might as well be modded redundant.

Re:It's already started

[rabiddeity]

Uh huh. And if you refuse, are they going to keep you, a citizen, from re-entering your own country? Arrest you? I wonder what the charges would be.

No, sir, here's the proper chain of dialog in this situation:

Them: Passport please.
You: Here you are.
Them: Fingers on the reader, please.
You: No.
Them: I can't let you into the country without fingerprints.
You: I'm a British citizen. The passport and photo prove it. Are you going to keep me out of my own country?
Them: ...
You: I'm a citizen, and I'm suspected of no crime. You have no right to take my fingerprints. I refuse to give them.

Do it calmly and nonviolently.

I suppose they'd arrest you then and get your fingerprints anyway. But if you did it, it would cause a row. If you and 4 other people did it, you might make the news. If you and 19 other people did it, it would certainly make the news. If you got a hundred people together to do it, it would make international headlines. And then things might have a chance at being changed. How much does a flight to Paris and back cost?

Re:It's already started

[Cederic]

Do it as calmly and non-violently as you like. The first thing is they invite you to join them in another room. They then arrest you on suspicion of causing a public disturbance, or under any of sixteen anti-terror laws. Now they have the legal right to take your fingerprints, your DNA and lock you up for 30 days without charge.

Frankly you need to just start refusing to go to Heathrow. It's your only hope.

Re:It's already started

[drsmithy]

They're not waiting for Terminal 5, I was photographed and fingerprinted like a criminal today on my way home from a meeting in Hamburg, via Heathrow Terminal 1. I wasn't happy, why should I as a UK passport holder have my fingerprints taken? It's a police state.

I wasn't photographed and fingerprinted, but I did get to have a full-body X-ray on the way through T4 last weekend. Even after that, I STILL had to walk through the damn metal detector, etc.

That happened the second time through security. I was coming through again because the first time they searched my carry-on bag and found the cable crimper I'd brought over to help a friend with some DIY. Despite pointing out about the nastiest thing I could do with that was bruise someone's finger, I still had to go and check my carry-on, resulting in an 15-20 minutes hanging around Zurich airport waiting for it at 10:30 that night (thankfully my Qantas Club membership let me scoot through the business check-in to check my bag in only a couple of minutes).

Fuckers.

Re:It's already started

[Richard W.M. Jones]

This cartoon explains one reason. Another is our dear leader pandering to commercial interests that want to sell this despicable technology.

Rich.

Re:It's already started

[jdub_dub]

I like your thinking. Thanks! I know what I'll be doing when they introduce this over in Oceania!

I don't want to live in a world where people are treated like criminals for doing nothing. I would prefer prison and watch while the rest of the world implodes.

Re:It's already started

[liteswap]

I did exactly that: coming off a flight from Glasgow to Gatwick, I refused to stop to have my photo taken on the way into the terminal. The guy just shrugged and let me through.

Everyone should try it.

Not too expansive

[dedeman]

Luckily, the country isn't so large that other forms of travel are not feasible.

Not like in the US, where if you're in NY, trying to go to LA (or other destinations west), air travel is one of the few options available.

I'm starting to wonder if there's some running joke, or competition, between lawmakers/politicians in the US and UK, seeing who can come up with the most idiotic, errrr I mean, essential to safety and liberty, stresses on freedom. Or maybe they're angling for the population to revolt.

Either way, laws like this win. If you follow them, you'll be safe, and so we must maintain them, because to maintain freedom and safety, we must be EVER VIGILANT. If they are broken, or cause civil unrest, they are justified in their creation, because look how many people there will be who want to wreak havoc on safety and order.

I never fly, unless absolutely necessary. If they want to make poorly thought regulation part of the new safety routine, I don't involve myself.

Re:Not too expansive

[siddesu]

Once it rolls out and costs go down, it'll be a matter of time before they put such systems in place for the other means of public transportation.

London buses are demonstrably a threat, right? So is the subway (Tokyo, Seoul, etc.). So is the railway. You may think highways are had to monitor, but in Japan we've had fingerprint locks on cars for a while, and people like it. How long until the locks are hooked to the wireless highway toll stations we already have, or to the wireless navigation that is being rolled out?

You'll be surprised how fast you'll be in the net as well ;)

In other news, pools and cars outlawed

[Shihar]

The measures we go through to stop terrorism have reached such a point of insanity that I am simply blown away. The way to react to a tiny handful of deaths has been so out of proportion to the threat, that I wake up thankful every single day that US Constitution provides at least some (admittedly constantly weakening) safeguards against democracy.

This latest scheme in Britain is just one more example of the utter insanity of the masses and their complete and utter inability to make rational decisions. You are radically more likely to be killed by your pool or a car than you are to be struck down by a terrorist. Despite this, we go through insane, fanatical, and expensive measures to prevent one of the rarest ways to die in a western democracy. Death through airplane exploded by terrorist rates somewhere near the absolute bottom in terms of likely ways to die... well below being struck down by lightening.

Honestly, I think that we have seen why democracies don't work. If we continue down this utterly insane path spending more and more resources to defend utterly insignificant attacks with wildly out of proportion, expensive, AND a costly to civil liberties methods, we might actually succeed where terrorist always fail. Terrorist in the west always fail to cause any real significant or costly damage. Even 9/11 was a drop in the bucket next to auto accident, cancer, heart attacks, or hurricanes. Yet, we treat a tragedy that can normally be shrugged off without flinching in such a violent way that we cause incalculable harm to ourselves. The money and lives lost in the response to 9/11 or the London bombings make the actual attacks like like pock change.

It is like getting a pin prick on your finger tip and responding by chopping your own arm off. Uh, yeah, you can't get pin pricked again... but you chopped off your fucking arm.

As much as I want to blame the politicians/corporations/neo-cons/fill-in-evil-entity-of-choice-here, the real problem is democracy. A system that changes itself in response to the utterly stupid and irrational emotions of the masses dooms itself. What is the alternative? The hell of I know. I thought that the US constitution offers up a good alternative to democracy as it seems to be written in pretty clear and absolute language. Despite this, the US has reverted to democracy in its most vile of forms. It might not be as far gone as Britain, but it is desperately trying. I honestly don't know the answer You can't ignore the irrational masses as you will fall into the trap of tyranny. That said, if you listen to the stupid cows, you get this crap, which is tyranny in another form.

Re:In other news, pools and cars outlawed

[ChameleonDave]

You're right about the paranoia, but you seem to have gone on an anti-democratic rant on the way. What makes you think that such measures are anything to do with democracy? Do you think that passengers and other citizens actually want this useless inconvenience?

Re:In other news, pools and cars outlawed

[mpe]

The measures we go through to stop terrorism have reached such a point of insanity that I am simply blown away.

With little evidence that they actually do anything to stop terrorism. Of course if they were to obviously fail the politicans would probably demand "more of the same" rather than admit that this "security theatre" is useless.

This latest scheme in Britain is just one more example of the utter insanity of the masses and their complete and utter inability to make rational decisions. You are radically more likely to be killed by your pool or a car than you are to be struck down by a terrorist. Despite this, we go through insane, fanatical, and expensive measures to prevent one of the rarest ways to die in a western democracy. Death through airplane exploded by terrorist rates somewhere near the absolute bottom in terms of likely ways to die... well below being struck down by lightening.

Wonder where being shot dead by armed police rates on this scale.

Re:In other news, pools and cars outlawed

[Petrushka]

I wake up thankful every single day that US Constitution provides at least some (admittedly constantly weakening) safeguards against democracy.

Wow, now I've seen everything. An American, criticising the United Kingdom for being too democratic. My mind boggles .... well, actually I guess I've seen enough to obviate the possibility of any boggling, but I shall at least permit my jaw to drop, though.

(Not that I agree with the assessment, mind you; I should have thought it pretty clear that in both countries, the opinions of anyone other than politicians and journalists are very effectively prevented from carrying any weight whatsoever. I should perhaps also add that I am neither a US citizen nor a UK subject.)

Re:In other news, pools and cars outlawed

[Shihar]

Sure, there are no "true" western democracies, but all of these systems of elements of democratic and non-democratic institutions. The US is a good example because it provides some very stark contrasts.

The US constitution is a very undemocratic document. The document can't be overturned by a popular vote. In fact, the change anything in the US constitution you need to go through a complex and painful process that involves getting more than a super-majority. Thus, it is very anti-democratic in its nature. It offers up resistance to the popular vote. Further, the document itself (especially the bill of rights) describes what rights the majority can't take away, no matter how badly they want to. The US constitution is an inherently very undemocratic document. It also offers up the best protections against the kind of insanity we now face. Clearly, the document is far from perfect as it has slowly over the past few hundred years been stripped of its teeth. Even in its current degraded form, it has offered up the best defense against the new insanity.

Compare this to election of representatives for government. True, this isn't "democracy" in its truest form, but it is certainly closer than something like the constitution. Representatives who are indeed elected through a democratic or near democratic way react violently to the will of the masses. Crap like the patriot act or this silliness in Britain come from the action or inaction of representatives. There are democratic methods of tossing these people to the curb to prevent these policies, but the simple fact of the matter is that the majority is either indifferent or for these changes. Hence, we see that a democratic institution is the cause of the current hysteria, while an utterly non-democratic institution like the US constitution and the court system are offering up the only defense against the current hysteria. Sadly, the forces against the current madness and losing slowly to the democratic will of the masses.

Look, I am not offering up a solution. I don't know what government system remains just, rational, liberal (in the traditional sense of the word), free of tyranny, AND retains the ability to change in a rational way to meet new (real) threats. I can just safely say that democracy isn't the answer.

Right, we believe it

[markdavis]

Do people REALLY believe the data will be deleted in 24 hours and used only to compare for boarding?

HA! They will be screened against databases and probably stored "forever", if not by the airport, by some aspect of the government. What proof would anyone have such data would not be abused now nor in the future?

The insanity continues...

Just more confirmation

[Hawthorne01]

of what Jean-Francois Revel is rumored to have said:

"Dark night of fascism is forever descending upon America, but it touches ground only in Europe."

Riiiiiight...

[RiffRafff]

"Airport executives claim that the data will be stored for no longer than 24 hours, and will not be shared with law enforcement."

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Re:Riiiiiight...

[AHuxley]

Just with Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States in real time.
Only the KGB uses tape backup: real spies just upload their important stuff.

Plenty of ways around it...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many ways around not giving your actual finger-prints during such processes. Google around and you'll find some interesting ideas.

The reason why such techniques works is because of the speed requirment such systems have, you can't have a person holding every one of your 5 digits and one by one exmaining them, it would take too long to board an aircraft.

What is worse?

[Sleen]

If countries do this sort of thing, then they deserve to become targets of terrorism of some sort. Certainly they are becoming as antagonistic to my personal liberty as any other infallible and fundamental group in the human world. As I understand it, personal liberty is not very important within the commonwealth and clearly this is evident on occasions like this. As long as there is a queen and bangers for breakfast everything must be ok.

Admittedly terrorism is bad if it targets the host nation that protects your own borders and life. But at some point people say wait a minute, its just the landlord right? Does them getting some flack back for once really matter to me? They don't represent me, they tax me, they wiretap my phonesex, and can take anything from me they want.

So what is worse? Having some pussy towelheads con some ignorant kids into jihad that blow stuff up, or having Big Mother take away your freedom? To me, they are looking very much the same.

Missing something big..

[LingNoi]

That's not the issue.

The issue that you're missing is that the pilot could be the damn terrorist in the first place. He could announce to all the passengers that "All your live are belong to me, hahaha make your time" and because the damn door is locked all you can do is watch yourself die.

Or what happens if the pilot has a heart attack or something which if movie plots is anything to go by happens on every flight.

Re:Missing something big..

[camperdave]

Well, that's what you get for letting a man do a machine's job.

Re:Missing something big..

[Admiral Ag]

""All your live are belong to me, hahaha make your time""

Am I the only one who now wants to spend years training as an airline pilot just so you can say this? So worth it...

Re:Missing something big..

[drsmithy]

The issue that you're missing is that the pilot could be the damn terrorist in the first place. He could announce to all the passengers that "All your live are belong to me, hahaha make your time" and because the damn door is locked all you can do is watch yourself die.

This is not "big". This is "tiny". The probability of that happening is so small it's irrelevant.

Or what happens if the pilot has a heart attack or something which if movie plots is anything to go by happens on every flight.

That's why you have a co-pilot.

Re:Missing something big..

[LingNoi]

I think this is a huge issue, it undermines any effort that security could do to prevent another plane going into a building. The previous terrorists trained to fly 747s before smacking them into the towers for years. It wouldn't take them much more effort to obtain their license and get a job flying them.

Re:Missing something big..

[drsmithy]

I think this is a huge issue, it undermines any effort that security could do to prevent another plane going into a building. The previous terrorists trained to fly 747s before smacking them into the towers for years. It wouldn't take them much more effort to obtain their license and get a job flying them.

So, what, you think you can just walk in off the street with a pilot's license and 6 months of experience and get a job flying large commercial jets unsupervised ?

With a name like Hosein

[tepples]

From the article:

Dr Gus Hosein, of the London School of Economics, an expert on the impact on technology on civil liberties, is one of the scheme's strongest critics. Is it just me, or does "Hosein" look close enough to "Hussein" that people will try to connect his criticism of the system with assumed ties to the Arab world and perhaps Arab terrorism? Some of you who follow the U.S. Democratic Party presidential primary campaign might have seen what happened when it came out that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein.

Re:With a name like Hosein

[nevali]

Hussein isn't that uncommon a name in the UK, and there are a couple of relatively well-known personalities who share it.

It might cause a knee-jerk amongst those people who would unlikely to ever in their lives go near Heathrow Airport, but that's really about it.

A list of airports like this?

[HFShadow]

So, does a site exist where I can see which airports / countries are going to invade my civil rights?

I'm thinking about a trip to Europe later this year and as a Canadian I don't particularly want my fingerprint / other biometric data in any foreign databases.

Re:A list of airports like this?

[Wuhao]

So, does a site exist where I can see which airports / countries are going to invade my civil rights?

Having traveled a bit, I feel confident saying that Wikipedia's worldwide list of airports is what you're looking for.

Re:A list of airports like this?

[Builder]

I was going to laugh, but I found myself crying instead :(

More security is better, right ?

[billcopc]

Since all the previous airport hassles have FAILED at improving security, they need to resort to even more random bullshit.

Let's face it: there is no methodical screening process that can properly account for the fact that people hate your country. This has nothing to do with terrorism, at least not the kind that the WTC was blamed on. Hell, if I were pissed off enough and just happened to have the resources to blow shit up, I would be somewhat tempted to raise hell in Washington or Buckingham or any other fucked up nation. That's the kind of anger these totalitarian regimes trigger within my gut. It feels fundamentally wrong and people get extreme reactions.

I say reverse the trend, make the airlines normal again as they were in the 80s and 90s. Who cares if people are "smuggling" drugs, or if someone just happens to be second cousin once removed to the groundskeeper of a member of the Bin Laden family ? Who really fucking cares ? They're on a plane, and they're travelling. If the US Government hadn't been shitting on Iraq for the last two decades, maybe those folks wouldn't be so angry in the first place. Then again, maybe someone would have detonated the WTC anyway just to instigate this mess, it has been the single most powerful event of this decade, and its effects are still expanding six years later with no loss of momentum.

The way I see it, if this keeps up, soon enough it's going to be USA vs everyone else in the world. For every force, there is an equal and opposite force. Americans don't want that, and the world doesn't want that, but keep shoving people around and eventually the nukes will fly.

Re:More security is better, right ?

[rhizome]

If the US Government hadn't been shitting on Iraq for the last two decades, maybe those folks wouldn't be so angry in the first place. Then again, maybe someone would have detonated the WTC anyway just to instigate this mess

LOL, a conflation of Iraq and terrorism par excellence!

Re:More security is better, right ?

[jeevesbond]

if I were pissed off enough and just happened to have the resources to blow shit up, I would be somewhat tempted to raise hell in Washington or Buckingham

You want to raise hell in Buckingham? What would be the point?

At least look up the capital city of the country you're talking about, getting it wrong devalues your point somewhat. :)

Re:More security is better, right ?

[mpe]

I say reverse the trend, make the airlines normal again as they were in the 80s and 90s. Who cares if people are "smuggling" drugs, or if someone just happens to be second cousin once removed to the groundskeeper of a member of the Bin Laden family ? Who really fucking cares ? They're on a plane, and they're travelling.

Someone smuggling probably has more reason that the average passenger to get to their destination on time.

If the US Government hadn't been shitting on Iraq for the last two decades, maybe those folks wouldn't be so angry in the first place.

Possibly the best thing the US could have done in response to 9/11 would have been to get out of interfering in the Middle East completely. But that would never happen.

Re:More security is better, right ?

[RAMMS EIN]

``More security is better, right ?''

Yes, but what are the threats we are protecting against? And are the measures we are taking actually effective in protecting against those threats? What about the threats we are not protecting against? Are these measures increasing other threats? When we factor in everything, do the measures make things better or worse?

And let's not downplay the importance of feelings. Because, in the end, that is all I _really_ care about. Of course I feel better if there are fewer successful attacks. I also feel better if I have more money to spend, because less of it went into supposed security programmes. And if I felt scared, I suppose I would feel better if I got the feeling something was being done to protect me. I don't feel good when I have to throw away my shampoo or the drink I brought with me to have on board.

How do we find a balance between all of the above? I'd say one way is to take a look at how airport security works in Israel. Regardless of whether there is a real terrorist threat in western Europe or the USA, I think the case can be made that there is such a threat in Israel. Yet, you don't hear about Israeli planes being blown up or hijacked and flown into skyscrapers. Sounds like they have good enough security. How does it work? How expensive is it? How intrusive is it? Do they take fingerprints, confiscate fluids, and have people take off their shoes? Do they focus on specific groups of people? Are there things we could learn from them?

Two words...

[CheeseTroll]

inflatable copilot.

The Point is ...

[Blue Stone]

>>"Airport executives claim that the data will be stored for no longer than 24 hours, and will not be shared with law enforcement."

>"Then why are you doing it?"

It's a way of gently easing the metaphorical butt-cheeks of the British public apart. It's what they did with Traffic cameras. First it was just about license plate data for the congestion charge, and we were all assured that it wouldn't capture images of faces or be used by the police ... Fast Forward a year or two, and faces are captured and the police have full unfettered access - to fight terrorism and organised crime ... and petty crime ... and political dissenters ...

They want to have their own way with you, so they open you up with a finger, apply a little lurication and allow you to fully relax before they bring out the truncheon.

Give it a year or so and our collective sphincters will have unclenched and our glorious overlords will tell us they need the data to protect us (coz they really love us) and it'll all be added into our permanent files.

Re:The Point is ...

[rucs_hack]

I had my first ever taste of domestic UK flight last year.

I was rather annoyed by the whole 'ZOMGH! Your kid is carrying half bottle of flavoured water!' that the couple in front of me went through, followed by a bag search as a reward for their kid being, well, a kid.... They were hugely embarrassed. I mean, what the bleep is up with that?
I found the whole 'you are suspicious because you are flying with us today' thing irritating.

Since then I've taken trains. It takes longer for some journeys, but its a lot less hassle.

Re:The Point is ...

[DKlineburg]

Isn't there now an add compain going on in radio and TV over there telling you if you see strange activity in a house, a person with too many cell phones, or just strange behavior on the street to call a national hotline for terror? Arn't there camera's that talk back if you get unrulely on the street? I don't live in the UK, but listen to pod casts, and that is what I have been hearing from that neck in the woods, or CCTV in the surveillance as it is.

Re:The Point is ...

[Blowfishie]

Reminds me of a saying I heard once:

"A people shouldn't be scared of its government, the government should be scared of its people" I can't remember the source (sorry).

Note: "scared of its people" is not meant as in the "they've got bombs" sense, but in the "they'll vote us out or protest" sense.
^^^ That's a caveat for any overlord who want to come and get me.

Re:The Point is ...

[RDW]

'Isn't there now an add compain going on in radio and TV over there telling you if you see strange activity in a house, a person with too many cell phones, or just strange behavior on the street to call a national hotline for terror?'

Indeed there is:

http://www.met.police.uk/so/at_hotline.htm

http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080307-terrorist-campaign-photographers-searched-london

Examples of terrorist paraphenalia include cameras, credit cards, mobile phones, computers, suitcases, cell phones and, err, vans.

This is from the same people who brought us my all time favourite 'public security' campaign:

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/News/eyes.htm

'Aren't there cameras that talk back if you get unruly on the street?'

Generally only if the unruly behaviour is caused by mushroom intoxication. But we do have rather a lot of cameras:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-details/George+Orwell,+Big+Brother+is+watching+your+house/article.do

Re:The Point is ...

[Archtech]

To no one's surprise, it was Jefferson.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".
- Thomas Jefferson

But then, if Jefferson were alive today he would already be in Guantanamo. Just check out some of the other things he said.

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first".

"...were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter".

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country".

"The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor".

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government".

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny".

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent".

And, perhaps most relevant of all today:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free...it expects what never was and never will be".

Re:The Point is ...

[kyz]

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first".

What is the difference between governments and organised crime?

One is organised.

Re:The Point is ...

[mikael]

Not forgetting:

Stuff - Terrorists need stuff. Houses, flats, apartments, terrorists need somewhere to store all their stuff. Have you seen someone collecting large amounts of stuff for no obvious reason?

Re:The Point is ...

[arkhan_jg]

I'm afraid mushrooms are no longer required to hear CCTV system operators telling you to "stop doing that" when they're watching you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6524495.stm

Re:The Point is ...

[aamcf]

Last weekend I was flying from Belfast to London. You weren't allowed to take cigarette lighters through the security checkpoint. The airside shop was selling cigarette lighters. The current airport security is nuts. Back in the 80s and 90s, when terrorism was a real day-to-day problem here, they had decent, effective, airport security, not this annoying charade that they do now.

Re:The Point is ...

[tom's a-cold]

Give it a year or so and our collective sphincters will have unclenched

And Britain is the beta site for many of the repressive measures coming to the US, so the USians need to start pushing back NOW.

Re:The Point is ...

[RDW]

Oh great. Obligatory Orwell quote:

''Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.!
Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not
trying. Lower, please! THAT'S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the
whole squad, and watch me.'

A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face
remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment!
A single flicker of the eyes could give you away.'

Re:The Point is ...

[Archtech]

'Note: "scared of its people" is not meant as in the "they've got bombs" sense, but in the "they'll vote us out or protest" sense.'

I'd like to point out that Jefferson did mean it in the "they've got bombs" sense. Well, guns anyway. That's what he meant when he wrote that

"The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

Of course you should start with the ballot, and exhaust all possible peaceful means first. But Jefferson made perfectly clear that there always needs to be the underlying threat of force "as a last resort". Otherwise those in power can just ignore the citizens, the laws, and even the constitution. That's one reason why he was dead set against allowing any government to have a standing army - it might cancel out or overcome the threat of force implicit in the citizens' right to bear arms.

Re:The Point is ...

[siriuskase]

If Americans were citizens of a land the size of the UK, the domestic air industry would have died a long time ago. Use of private boats, planes, and automobiles is way up. Many people routinely drive distances that can't be done in the UK by any sensible route. Domestic airliners are mostly for getting out of the country or to a completely different part of the country. The fractional ownership industry was not significant eight years ago. Private planes of all sorts were a dying industry, but all this has changed. Everytime they tighten the screws, a few more quit flying. If the railroad was any good at all, it would be doing a great business. But, government has no talent for running a railroad either, so for anyone in a hurry to travel a long way, airlines are still here.

About that kid and his half drunk bottle of water - you'd think having him consume a gulp of it in front of the agent would have been sufficient proof, it would have been at least as reassuring as when security at Hearthrow requested me to push every button on my TI-59 back in the 70's. As far back as I can remember, security at Heathrow has been outragiously stupid. Hey, if I really had a calculator bomb, I would have used an odd key chord to set it off, not a single button, but maybe I've said too much. Do they read /.?

The simple solution...

[actionbastard]

End the dependence of the western world on mid-east oil.

Once the Saudi's have only the Chinese as customers, anything
that happens in the middle east becomes irrelavent to the western world.

When middle-eastern economies degrade to the point that they have to depend
on sand as an export product, all this nonsense will stop.

However, as long as American presidents like Bush hold hands with
Saudi princes, we will never be rid of the 'terrorists' and we will have to put
up with this, and worse, until the oil runs out.

Re:The simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the issue. The issue is money..

The U.S. produces and stockpiles MORE than enough oil to support our own domestic usage of the product (which is of a better quality, anyway) for some time to come. However, it's cheaper for the big wigs (thus more expensive to the consumer) for the U.S. to produce top-quality oil for export, export it to other nations on ships, and import other nations' oil (shit quality in comparison) to the U.S. and then ship it all around for distribution... Tell me how the fuck that's cheaper than using our own oil, our own hard working Americans, and just doing things on our own? It's not. Anyone who says it is is full of shit and is making money off of it, that's the only reason.

Bush doesn't give a damn about the price of oil.. he owns oil fields and makes money off of the higher prices, all he has to do is use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY (and lives) to wage a bullshit war to drive oil prices and 'demand' up and he makes more money. Nice scheme eh?

Same kinda bullshit as the CIA running drugs to keep all the drug police employed and keep thousands of jobs around the nation..

And all the crap in the middle east and stuff... that's the black bags out of Washington playing chess with the rest of the world just to get them to dance to our tune and do what we want.

Might sound like a conspiracy but dig around, there's enough evidence out there to support at least one version of those claims.

Disclaimer: Those aren't necessarily my views, and if they were, they're most definitely not my thoughts to the letter.

BTW the world is already a police state. If I were so inclined to be the patriot that starts the revolution to put things back to the way they should be, I'd pick up the my cell phone and call my house phone and when it connects, scream into the phone shit like "I have a nuclear weapon. I am going to detonate a nuclear weapon." etc etc for a minute or two, hang up the phone, heat up a hot pocket and wait for the swarm of police to show up. GG Echelon.

I wouldn't be much of a patriot after that because I'd be wiped from existence, never heard from again, and stand no chance at defending myself or explaining my actions in a court of law. Things have gone too far already and there's nothing anybody can legally do to make a difference that isn't already corrupt. The world has become a system. Join or die.

Re:The simple solution...

[tompaulco]

End the dependence of the western world on mid-east oil.
You're right. Without airports, there would be no need for fingerprinting at airports.

nothing like a police state

[FudRucker]

URL:http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/05/292199.jpg>

Supprised they aren't collecting DNA

[rahvin112]

I'm surprised they aren't collecting DNA as well. After all there is a penchant for the British police to get a cheek swab from every single person for absolutely any reason.

Just look at that guy that bought the laptop with the secret classified CDROM hidden under the keyboard, he had to give a cheek swab and all he did was buy a used a computer and turn in the classified CDROM as a punishment for being honest and doing the right thing.

Re:Supprised they aren't collecting DNA

[Rakishi]

After all there is a penchant for the British police to get a cheek swab from every single person for absolutely any reason. Of course they do and they don't have to ever get rid of what they collect. If you're even suspected of a crime your DNA will be on file permanently even if you're found innocent or never even charged. The UK police have if I remember more DNA on file in raw numbers, not per capita, than the US despite having a fifth of the population.

Don't worry

[NotQuiteReal]

Most governments are staffed by, get this, government employees!

If you are really worried about it, maybe you should become a government employee too, and *cough*, *cough*, make a few more errors and bureaucratic screw ups than average for such workers...

I am worried about the loss of liberty, sure, theoretically. I am for sure worried about how much they are going to tax me to hire all these wankers.

There... I fixed it for you.

[Nick Driver]

"British Airport will require no income or revenue from domestic customers."

'nuff said.

Cut fingers

[Max_W]

They do not know what they are doing. Often the consequences differ from what is expected.

They expect it will bring more order, but in reality it increases tremendously the value of human fingers for the real criminals.

The technique will develop to cut the skin and paste it on the live fingers. It happened already with the luxury cars where security was based on the fingers too. It resulted that the finger of owners were cut out.

Instead of just loosing a bloody car the owners were mutilated.

Mod up please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take him to the top. ASAP.

Re:Worse plans than considered for the US and Japa

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck modded a mycitylink up?

Another country

[Slisochies]

Another country to add to my list of places not to visit...

Cool.

[Zadaz]

This is so it'll be easier to identify the bodies after the plane blows up, right?

Re:Cool.

[whitehatlurker]

Well, I was thinking more along the lines that these airports have so little trust in the pilots that they expect to have to use this information when the planes crash, but yes - you're on the right track. Victim ID is the primary reason for these sorts of biometrics. However, they are going about it wrong. DNA sampling would be better, and likely quicker.

non-standard consipracy theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, everyone else has already stated the obvious ones. Here's another idea:

Suppose that this is really just a way to make it such a PITA to fly, that people won't bother unless they really need to. With oil over $100/barrel, there needs to be some conservation somewhere. You could jack the price up (and carbon credits are basically equivelent to that, if they can be traded for money) or you could just make obvious waste (like flying anywhere that a train and/or ferry could take you in day) a PITA. So fingerprints and partial strip-searches for domestic passengers.

Either that, or it's a straw-man, which they float out, watch get struck down, and then nobody will mind as much when they come out with their real idea, because it only requires some people to be fingerprinted, and only once. (Or whatever.) Or, it's subtle diplomatic back-pressure against a certain country that fingerprints all visitors.

Re:non-standard consipracy theory

[Gordonjcp]

Suppose that this is really just a way to make it such a PITA to fly, that people won't bother unless they really need to.

Close, but no banana. The real answer is that Heathrow *simply doesn't want internal flights* - there's not enough money in it. They don't make much profit from internal flights, so they've been doing things like jacking up landing fees and ground fees to the point where it's no longer economically viable to have Heathrow as an internal destination.

If they do this, people will avoid Heathrow and airlines will stop flying there, leaving them free to deal with the far more lucrative international market.

Re:non-standard consipracy theory

[rarel]

I don't really know the math, but wouldn't the short-term consequence be a massive loss of profit? In the meantime the companies still would need to fly the planes with as much passengers as they can to reduce the cost per seat per gallon or whatever measure is in place, especially because the fuel is so damn expensive now. They can't afford to fly empty planes. Not unless the plan is also to have most airlines just shut down with thousands of people losing their jobs. I'm not sure how that would improve things.

Disney World, anyone?

[dubious elise]

Disney has been using this stuff for a similar purpose for the past three years and they keep the information much longer than Heathrow's 24 hours (Disney officials state that the info is retained for as much as 30 days after the last use or expiration of a WDW ticket - your fingers aren't broken, I know you can do your own Google search to verify it). I guess if it speeds things up, and heaven only knows that Heathrow needs help in that area, then I have no problems with it.

24 very long hours

[davidwr]

How many thousand thousand minutes are in one of those airport hours?

Two more words...

[mcpkaaos]

Blow Rock?

Train

[tsa]

And while you are waiting in line to get your fingers printed I'm already halfway through the country by train.

Re:Train

[mikeb]

Give 'em time and they'll be trying to collect fingerprints for train journeys too.

However, in the meantime I've emailed BAA (corporateresponsibility@baa.com) to congratulate them on an initiative that will help to reduce carbon emissions by putting people off traveling by plane. At least it's put me off. And it's suggested a new business for me - the sale of latex fingertips with other people's fingerprints on them. Can you imagine the market for them, with a choice of patterns? Bush, Blair, Paris Hilton ... I must contact my suppliers in China and start getting some prices. Who will buy? I feel a website coming on ....

The problem is that you can't trust anyone

[cheros]

The UK government has a long and rich history of allowing the police and secret service to get away with pretty much anything they like. What you get if it leaks is some blip in the press, that takes a few days and then things will progress as before.

You make take it as significant that since New Labour came to power there has been a sharp decline in people being ejected from their posts for abject failure, even the guy responsible for the process failures that led to the loss of 2 CDs with the details of several million people on did not actually lose his job after he "resigned", he now works in a much cushier position at Cabinet Office. Yes, that's right, in principle a promotion. That's a subtle hint of how New Labour thinks about privacy.

It follows thus that what Heathrow management says and what really will happen is VERY likely to be different, or it will be a weasel argument as "WE only keep it 24h, but it's not our fault the police takes a copy at 12h and we don't know what they do with it". I hope they have at least the intelligence to store the fingerprints as a hash, but given the predicted leak I am willing to bet that it's full imagery.

And in that case, imagine what may be on the next CDs (sorry DVDs - fingerprints need space) that will be lost? Exactly, the one bit of data you normally control because you have it physically on you, and the one aspect you can't change other than with judicious use of a sharp knife or strong acid (apparently, never felt the need for it myself :-).

I will avoid any route going through terminal 5. What's more, as that is a BA terminal it's a good argument to avoid flying BA altogether - from what I've heard (since the luggage debacle) that's not a bad idea anyway.

Or investigate fake fingers..

Huh?

[Guppy06]

Wait... you're saying the UK actually has domestic flights? Their country is actually big enough to actually justify the hassle of flying from time to time?

Re:Huh?

[91degrees]

It is slightly faster to fly from London to Glasgow than to take the train. Train probably takes about 5 hours. Plane will take about 3 hours including check-in times and travel to/from the airport.

Re:Huh?

[tompaulco]

It is slightly faster to fly from London to Glasgow than to take the train. Train probably takes about 5 hours. Plane will take about 3 hours including check-in times and travel to/from the airport.
Not anymore. With fingerprinting, it will take much longer to get through security. They'll probably want you at the airport three to four hours prior to departure.

Re:Huh?

[91degrees]

Or maybe they won't. Considering thsi hasn't been implemented yet, it seems a little soon to be complaining about how long it takes since, so far, it doesn't.

Domestic flights

[__aavevi421]

We need them due to how congested our roads have become and the deplorable state of our rail network.

Yeah Right

[meist3r]

If you don't keep the data for more than 24hrs and don't cooperate with law enforcement then were did they get all the fingerprint data to match? Maybe they found a disc with fingerprints of millions of citizens lying around. Wouldn't be all too surprised from what I've heard from the UK lately. Brits apparently are the better Nazis as it turns out.

Mod parent up

[BeerCat]

I'd mod you up, if I hadn't used them yesterday

Time to bring back the Whigs?

[scaryjohn]

Vote Lib-Dem in 2010. There's no other answer. I don't care if Nick Clegg wants to drive the party into the ground. It's not like the Torries object to fingerprinting everybody and everything.

I wish our Democratic party had half the commitment to civil liberties as the Lib-Dems. And don't get me started with the libertarians: They don't have 80 seats in Congress. Besides, I like my personal freedom with a small side of business regulation.

Somehow I can see a lot more abusses of this info.

[3seas]

... than I can see of criminal passenger tracking.

make two list, one of the benefits of such tracking for criminal capture and the second as to how many ways this information can be used by criminals.

See which one grows faster.

It will matter a lot come the next election

[Kupfernigk]

The Lib Dems may well hold the balance, and they dissent from the major parties on this issue. They also have a few heavyweights who know how the world works and are critical of it - Vince Cable is a former chief economist of Shell, no less, and has just delivered a speech attacking the failure to tax rich immigrants.

Re:It will matter a lot come the next election

[PReDiToR]

If the LibDems ever became a serious political party (I mean if it ever looked like they might come to power one day) they would soon find themselves under the same pressures that the Blue&Red parties are under and would be making decisions like this one and justifying them with the same rationales that these guys use.

This isn't about the government, this is about the civil service and the police force, neither department were voted in.

Write to your MP using this website

[Zollui]

http://www.writetothem.com/

What's preventing a revolution?

[Requiem18th]

Anyway, what's preventing a revolution?

  Maybe I'm getting it wrong but i see two factors that are preventing a revolution. Firstly, is that the averange folk doesn't think there is anything wrong with governmental power.

  They hold power anyway. They have always been able to track down people, to search out logs, to watch over us, with guards rather than cameras. Whenever I talk about this with other they all give that weird look as if I was making a big drama about it. Same thing about facebook. They don't see personal data minding as a problem.

  Given that the argument that a little insecurity is worth a ton of freedom as little support with them. Who cares if the government makes a massive land grab of our rights if it might help arresting of a child pornographer terrorist every 5 years?

  The other problem is that we lack a way to counter this trend. The only thing that we can do to fix a govern which is fundamentally wrong at the core of its philosophy is to replace it. But with who? How can a bunch of anarchists going to produce a leader?

  But really, the irony is that the general populations does think that the government is untrustworthy and corrupt yet sees anarchism as childish, demential and at best, evil.

Re:What's preventing a revolution?

[Zollui]

"Whenever I talk about this with other they all give that weird look as if I was making a big drama about it."

From this statement, I gather that, like myself, you watch little to no television at all. The masses are very heavily influenced - one might even say 'drugged' - by the propaganda expertly meted out by way of television broadcasting. That's why you and I notice that 'oblique look'.

Re:What's preventing a revolution?

[Requiem18th]

True true, still, there is a pervasive subversive feel to media. Spiderman still runs from the police, Neo rebels against the matrix, Dr House does what he thinks right regardless of the legality of his actions, etc, etc... I was hoping this would mean people would still be receptive of these kinds of ideas but it doesn't ring a bell outside of fiction.

  So all this *drugging* either comes entirely from Fox and other TV news or, as I suspect, it is simply that there is always something interesting to watch that drugs people? Or both?

An enabler

[ridgecritter]

that was missing until recently was the technology to do all this data capture (cameras, prints, retina scans, etc.), store it, and correlate/analyze it easily and cheaply. As little as ten years ago, the level of surveillance that is being put into place now would have been too expensive even for national governments. There's definitely a dark side to Moore's Law.

Not far enough

[CopaceticOpus]

If these people were serious about stopping terrorism, they wouldn't be trying wimpy fingerprinting schemes. Here's how you do it:

1. Passengers check in and are given anesthetics
2. Their clothing is removed and burned
3. Their naked bodies are xrayed and then wrapped in paper
4. They are loaded on the plane
5. After the flight, they are unloaded and dressed in hospital gowns
6. Six to twelve hours later they wake up and are free to go

You can fit a LOT more passengers on a plane when they're in this state, so just think of the cost savings!

information will not be passed on....

[bagofbeans]

You missed something.

After: BAA, the company which owns Heathrow, insists the biometric information will be destroyed after 24 hours and will not be passed on to the police. ...the article says: It says the move is necessary to prevent criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants trying to bypass border controls.

So how do you prevent criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants trying to bypass border controls without cross checking their fingerprints against outside databases, which identify said people? Do you think Heathrow has a copy of every fingerprint database? No? Then the fingerprints must be transmitted outside for comparison, and outside now has a copy.

Write to you MP!

[xaxa]

http://www.writetothem.com/

I've only done it three times, the first time opposing the expansion of Heathrow Airport. I got a crappy, standard response from Gordon Brown. I then filled out a survey from my local representatives (in London, right under the flightpath) which hopefully will have more effect. I'm quite close to joining e.g. Greenpeace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7262614.stm) to see if that helps.

The second time I didn't even get an acknowledgement.

The third letter is still on my desk... oops, I should post it.

Vindicated again

[nurb432]

Man, i wish i was wrong sometimes.

I hear a lot of remarks from Europeans of one

[ScrewMaster]

stripe or another along the lines of "well, that's one more reason for me not to visit the United States." Now that's fair enough, I suppose, given where the Bush Administration has taken us since 9/11.

But frankly, this is one more reason for me not to visit England. You'd think it wouldn't bother me, given what's happening in my country ... but nobody's going to fingerprint me unless I've been arrested.

I'd be fucking damned

[SpaghettiPattern]

I'd be fucking damned do leave my prints without a court order and I'd actually be prepared to bare the costs for being shipped back.

ONLY Terminal 5, and ONLY British Airways

[RockDoctor]

Well, it's not exactly rocket science. In the unlikely event that I find myself taking a flight down to London (instead of taking a nice, relaxing overnight train as I normally do), then I'll take a flight on some other carrier to some other terminal, or to some other airport. Once BA collapses into economic ruin, maybe the corporate skeleton will be hung on a gibbet outside the airport as a reminder to others not to be so silly.

I think that BA aren't going to like the number of requests they have to deal with demanding a print out of any personal information they hold on passengers, then challenging it's veracity, demanding it's deletion (after it's allegedly been deleted). Just the general tricks of making life hell for bureaucrats. It's more fun than pulling the wings off flies, and ethically much more defensible (flies don't have a choice about being flies ; bureaucrats do have a choice).