Slashdot Mirror


Cancer Patient Held At Airport For Missing Fingerprints

A 62-year-old man visiting his relatives in the US was held for four hours by immigration officials after they could not detect his fingerprints because of a cancer drug he was taking. The man was prescribed capecitabine, a drug used to treat cancers in the head, neck, breast, and stomach. Some of the drug's side-effects include chronic inflammation of the palms or soles of the feet, which can cause the skin to peel or bleed. "This can give rise to eradication of fingerprints with time," explained Tan Eng Huat, senior consultant in the medical oncology department at Singapore's National Cancer Center. "Theoretically, if you stop the drug, it will grow back, but details are scanty. No one knows the frequency of this occurrence among patients taking this drug and nobody knows how long a person must be on this drug before the loss of fingerprints," he added.

323 comments

  1. The scariest words in the English language by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're from the government, and we're here to help you!

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:The scariest words in the English language by VernonNemitz · · Score: 0

      Now if only they could be a bit more specific about that.
      There is more than one way to "help", after all.
      In this case, why do they insist on fingerprints to identify someone?
      Sure, they might want to know if the person they are holding already has a record.
      If not, though, then certainly they are creating a new record, right?
      So, gather retinal scans, voice prints, DNA samples, whatever.
      Those will suffice if captured after doing something in the future.
      If the dude survives the cancer the drug will stop and eventually they might be able to request fingerprints from his foreign government, to finally find out if he is wanted for something done in the past.

    2. Re:The scariest words in the English language by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're from the government, and we're here to help you!

      Uh, what's that got to do with anything? When would that have been said during this exchange? I mean, customs officials don't say "we're from the government" and they DEFINITELY don't say "We're here to help you."

    3. Re:The scariest words in the English language by MadAhab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      The scariest words in the English language are "I'm just doing my job." That doesn't sound so good in German either.

      Besides, immigration officials aren't there to help anyone. Just ask the tourists who don't come to the US anymore.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    4. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What... you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security? Wow. Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...

    5. Re:The scariest words in the English language by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      No, the scariest words are "I'm just following orders."
      Usually said right before you get pushed into a giant oven.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Shakrai · · Score: 1, Funny

      That doesn't sound so good in German either.

      Nothing sounds good in German. The words "I love you" sound so guttural that most people start thinking back to certain speeches at Nuremberg a few decades ago ;)

      Of course to be fair I'd imagine that English sounds the same way to non-native speakers, given it's Germanic roots. Italian on the other hand.... "I'm gonna kill you" sounds like "I love you" to a non-native speaker. I'm told this can lead to misunderstandings when being mugged in Rome..... ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What... you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security? Wow. Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...

      We have border security? Could have fooled me.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case, why do they insist on fingerprints to identify someone?
      Sure, they might want to know if the person they are holding already has a record.
      If not, though, then certainly they are creating a new record, right?
      So, gather retinal scans, voice prints, DNA samples, whatever.
      Those will suffice if captured after doing something in the future.

      Every international airport would have to

      1. install retinal scanners,
      2. install voice print analyzers,
      3. have hundreds of mouth swabs on hand,
      4. install uber-speed DNA analyzers, (can they even do it in the minutes needed?)
      5. train the users to do it properly,
      6. upgrade all the computers to add the new data types, and
      7. new programming to use the new data.

      And the billions of dollars to implement it.

      All for a tiny percentage of the population.

      Not to mention the HOWLS OF RAGE from privacy groups, the ACLU, the EU, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

      Instead of knee-jerk reacting about how stupid the US government is, think about what you just wrote.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nothing sounds good in German. The words "I love you" sound so guttural that most people start thinking back to certain speeches at Nuremberg a few decades ago ;)

      If you're saying it gutturally, you're saying it wrong. There are no guttural sounds in "Ich liebe Dich". The "ch" sound in those words is palatal -- this sound, not this sound.

      Of course German is going to sound guttural and violent if all you listen to is people doing Hitler impressions. Real-life German is about as romantic-sounding as a language gets. (Note: I'm not German.)

    10. Re:The scariest words in the English language by hey! · · Score: 1

      Your post doesn't make any sense.

      Are you saying that the government ought *not* be involved in aviation security? Or that we just have to live with this kind of thing?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:The scariest words in the English language by SuperAndy · · Score: 1, Funny

      I have to agree. Listen to someone from Bavaria speaking, it almost has a lilt to it.

    12. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you repeat this to the firefighters, police, paramedics and other government employees who do wonderful service and save lives every day.

    13. Re:The scariest words in the English language by alexborges · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate your pretty bullets.

      --
      NO SIG
    14. Re:The scariest words in the English language by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Real-life German is about as romantic-sounding as a language gets.

      I agree with your generals, but this is just stretching it too far.

      German is short, has a lot of consonants all over and it kind-of crackles.

      THE romantic language is french and you see that when a parisian gets angry (which happens quite a lot, btw), he needs to scream his lungs out to convey that hes angry.

      --
      NO SIG
    15. Re:The scariest words in the English language by alxkit · · Score: 0

      whose government?

    16. Re:The scariest words in the English language by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US government is stupid, but this is just a case of a specific person being stupid (both the official and the poster you replied to).

      Fingerprinting everyone who enters your country is only valid when you've already deteriorated civil liberties beyond the point of no return. I don't think turning your country into a police state for the sake of being "safe" is a reasonable scenario. The bottom line is that US foreign policy put the US in its current position, so maybe changing this might ensure safety.

      Wars on "terrorism" and clandestine activities involving your secret services aren't exactly on the road to positive foreign policy.

      The more the US moves toward this police state (and police the world attitude), the more people will be wrongly detained at airports, boarders, hell, even in other countries. This does not reflect well at all for the US or US citizens.

    17. Re:The scariest words in the English language by TRRosen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try listening to German porn. Its hilarious!

    18. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fingerprinting everyone who enters your country is ... turning your country into a police state

      What kind of brainlessness is this which asserts that "making sure you are who you say you are" == "police state"?????

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    19. Re:The scariest words in the English language by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      because they have the guns and the "law" and what they want they get, unfortunately.

    20. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's their job all right. They just don't do it very well.

    21. Re:The scariest words in the English language by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So photographs are no longer valid?

      I suppose we should all burn our passports and submit ourselves to chipping? Fingerprinting is not and never will be a valid form of identifying innocent civilians. The only people in my country that get fingerprinted are people who are charged with a crime, not innocent people entering the country (or, now as a newer article shows, leaving the country).

      Gee, that doesn't sound like a police state at all.

      What kind of brainlessness is this which asserts that "fingerprinting" == "making sure you are who you say you are"?

    22. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Of course German is going to sound guttural and violent if all you listen to is people doing Hitler impressions.

      Ok, it's not surprising that this got Godwinned so soon, but I wasn't expecting the discussion to get there by that route!

      --
      FGD 135
    23. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Randall311 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everybody who requires a security clearance also must submit to fingerprinting. There are countless other valid reasons for fingerprinting as well. Why do you think that only people being charged with a crime are the ones that submit to fingerprinting? How is it any worse than having your picture taken for your passport? The only difference is that they now have something to tie back to you. This is not a police state.

    24. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So photographs are no longer valid?

      Hair cuts, hair dyes, grow/remove beards, weight gain, colored contact lens, nose jobs, etc, etc.

      I suppose we should all burn our passports and submit ourselves to chipping?

      I was fingerprinted when applying for my passport.

      Fingerprinting is not and never will be a valid form of identifying innocent civilians.

      How incredibly shortsighted and naive are you????

      Because my fingerprints are on file, if I am ever suspected of a "physical" crime in which the perpetrator left a fingerprint, I would be "unsuspected" (or at least dropped down the list) without even knowing that I were a suspect.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    25. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US seems to love fingerprinting as a method of ID for some reason. In most countries, the only people that ever have their fingerprints taken are criminals.

      I have security clearances to several Australian Federal Government departments (as an IT contractor). No fingerprints required. They just simply aren't used here as a method of ID.

      The only people in the world who have my fingerprints, in fact, are the Americans, because I have travelled to the US and they take ALL TEN FINGERPRINTS of all visitors (?!?!!! that's still a serious wtf from me every time I think about it, even though I've gone through it a dozen times now)

    26. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have security clearances to several Australian Federal Government departments (as an IT contractor). No fingerprints required. They just simply aren't used here as a method of ID.

      They are occasionally. If you try to do some work for Victoria Police they'll ask for your fingerprints before giving you clearance.

    27. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security?"

      Emphatically yes.

    28. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because your fingerprints are on file, if anyone ever commits a "physical" crime in which the perpetrator left a fingerprint, and their fingerprint matches yours, you would be suspected, and forced to prove your innocence. If you believe that fingerprints are unique, you have another thing coming. Worldwide, there are going to be plenty of people whose fingerprints are close enough to yours to match. With a small pool of recorded fingerprints, this fact doesn't stand out that much. Fingerprint everyone in the world, and whenever the police check a fingerprint, the computer is going to spit out a book of possible matches.

    29. Re:The scariest words in the English language by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is exactly my point.

      I too am an Aussie, and I find the notion of fingerprinting innocents a gross violation of human rights. It seems the typical response to not wanting to be printed is "if you have nothing to hide you won't mind".

      Well, my response is "if I am innocent then why am I being treated like a criminal"?

      I know this conversation will go nowhere due to the hard line Americans hijacking it and defending the police state they live in. None are so jaded as the people who fully accept giving up their liberties and rights for the sake of "security"... no, I'm not going to do the full quote, but you get the picture.

    30. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing it wrong.

    31. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's not all Americans. Just the ones that voted for that dipshit Bush and this time Cheney.

      And don't start an argument about how the popular vote not winning Gore the election illustrates how all Americans are idiots. Your government is just as messed up.

      I hate the fact that I live in a country where a lot of people think that it's OK to give away your rights just because some politician promises you "safety". I also hate foreigners that are so narrow minded to think that all Americans are the same.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    32. Re:The scariest words in the English language by maglor_83 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How on Earth is fingerprinting me going to tell you if I am who I say I am? You have nothing to compare it to, because nobody knows what my fingerprints look like.

    33. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What... you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security? Wow. Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...

      That doesn't make much sense. Most right wingers in your Americanadian political spectrum are all for "border protection": it is the left who want to eliminate borders.

    34. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Nutria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, my response is "if I am innocent then why am I being treated like a criminal"?

      But getting fingerprinted does not and never has treated you like a criminal. (I first got fingerprinted 30+ years ago for a passport.)

      It in only about Authentication. Nothing more, nothing less.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    35. Re:The scariest words in the English language by bemymonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So because they only fingerprint criminals in your country, fingerprinting someone anywhere else is "treating them like a criminal"?

      Sure, it's a hassle, but the only reason I'd feel like a criminal while being fingerprinted would be from watching too much bad TV (being as the only people who get fingerprinted on TV shows or in movies are criminals :P)...

    36. Re:The scariest words in the English language by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      German is short, has a lot of consonants all over and it kind-of crackles.

      You would love Finnish:

      "Kokoa kokoon kokko!"
      "koko kokkoko?"
      "Koko kokko"

      Yes, that does make sense in Finnish.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    37. Re:The scariest words in the English language by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try listening to German porn. Its hilarious!

      Ja, meine panzerwagen, das ist gut!

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    38. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Randall311 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Stereotyping asshole. There really is nothing wrong with fingerprinting, just like there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. If you abuse your rights, you will suffer the consequences. There is no f-ing police state here. The big question is why the hell do you nitwits associate fingerprinting with criminal activity? Sounds to me like you've seen too many bad movies.

    39. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will go nowhere because be that line alone you've made up your mind about the whole situation. The thing is Australia doesn't really get involved in world politics/issues to the extent it would put them in a poor position to be bashed by just about everyone on the globe. The fact of the matter is that the US is such a wealthy country and have stakes on just about every place on the planet that it becomes near impossible not to get involved somewhere. And this is beside the countries that call up the US asking for aid or assistance with a rival threatening them with war/weapons. I could also mention that Australia hasn't been hit by a major attack such as the US. But at the same respect from what I've read they seem to take up a strong stance on net policing and other IT related policing acts. So I wouldn't be so quick to judge on this.

      Foreign policy is rife with agreements and treaties that have be abided in order to get what the US needs or wants. This overall greatly impacts trade for both the US and other countries that rely on the US for their GDP. Unfortunately its come to the point where the US is "popular" enough to be attacked by terrorists. And by the use of the word popular I mean it in the fashion of the actual definition not by the positive association given to it by Joe Schmoo.

      In the end one of the largest issues is the support of the Israelis. This is most likely one reason that drives terrorists to attack the US. Along with a bunch of other garbage of "you bring porn, free thinking women ideas into our culture etc etc." Which if you want to be part of the larger world at hand (meaning coming out of 2nd or 3rd world status to top tier) a particular culture would over time have to give up some of its old cultures. No one is forcing them to do this, its something that gradually happens by the choice of the people in various locales around the globe. The US has done this in the past, but apparently seems to do it much faster as time progresses. But the terrorists spout that the US is a bad influence, yadda yadda to further their religious agenda which when you actually go read it is the eradication of everyone on the planet but themselves beacuse they are "unbelievers"....Now compare this to Christians whom may "Bible thump" etc etc but basically give you a choice after speaking with a person about Christ then leave you on your way. They don't try to kill you, however past history would show that they did at one point. Although that was something that took place thousands of years ago not sure why they get the blame for that now seeing as no one alive at this time is directly affected by it.

      I do have to say I don't agree with what happened in the article, I'd chalk it up to horrible management of not making sure employees knew the proper procedures and to use common sense and to poor decision making on the security person's part. As for me if that happened to me? I would take the train from now on. Even its longer, just plan ahead. We don't always have to get somewhere the day of, plan ahead. What is wrong with that in this day in age?

      That last question I know opens me up for a slew of comments but oh well....well the whole comment does, but have at it.

    40. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Alioth · · Score: 1

      No, it's "Hi, we're from the Government, and we're not happy till you're not happy!"

    41. Re:The scariest words in the English language by beerbear · · Score: 1

      Scheisse.

      --
      Hold my beer and watch this!
    42. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None are so jaded as the people who fully accept giving up their liberties and rights for the sake of "security"..

      except for those who do so and still tout how wonderfully free the USA is.

    43. Re:The scariest words in the English language by adonoman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not an American, but:

      I find the notion of fingerprinting innocents a gross violation of human rights.

      Really? A gross violation of human rights is being sold into slavery. It's being denied personhood. It's having your local police force come by and rape your wife. It's being held indefinitely without charge and being subjected to torture. It's having all the children in your entire ethnic group rounded up and sent to boarding schools to be assimilated.

      Being fingerprinted is a pointless invasion of privacy, and an inconvenience.

    44. Re:The scariest words in the English language by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Of course German is going to sound guttural and violent if all you listen to is people
      > doing Hitler impressions. Real-life German is about as romantic-sounding as a language gets.

      I don't know. Pennsylvania Deutch is derived from German, and it sounds pretty rough compared to, say, Brasilian Portuguese. Even English (which is only loosely related to modern German, really) is a bit rough around the edges.

      On the other hand, there are languages with a much rougher sound. Klingon is the most extreme example I'm aware of, and it was constructed that way artificially, but Yiddish is pretty far over toward that end of the scale as well, and it got that way naturally. Speaking of which, isn't Yiddish related to German?

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    45. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Cederic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or maybe we come from countries where only criminals are fingerprinted.

      I'm not a criminal. Don't try and treat me like one.

      America doesn't welcome visitors, so I don't visit. Fuck you and your parochial small-minded self-obsessed nation.

    46. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...

      I'm the craziest right-wing loony, and I admit no such thing.

    47. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Yes I guess that's what my post was trying to get across though - it IS mostly only about authentication in the US.

      But other countries perceive that as a bizarre thing. They SEE it as a gross violation of their rights. It's a difference in the perception of what fingerprinting means, rather than anything inherently more evil about the US system. Cultural insensitivity, if you will.

      I wonder how fingerprinting became such an accepted way of IDing someone in the US but not in other countries? There must be some historical reason for that.

      Actually now that I think about it, a lot of Americans seem to be paranoid about ID cards (aka the old 'papers please' meme). Yet in most countries, ID cards are the accepted method of ID. So there you go - Americans trust fingerprinting but don't like ID cards. Other people distrust fingerprinting but think ID cards are perfectly acceptable. Bit of an oversimplification but an interesting thing to think about...

    48. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Americans seem to be paranoid about ID cards (aka the old 'papers please' meme).

      I'd say it was the Cold War. Maybe further back; trying to think whether the "Germans" asked for papers in WW2 movies.

      Yet in most countries, ID cards are the accepted method of ID.

      Speaking as a thru-and-thru American, I think it's because the US started as a place of freedom: live where you want to live, do what you want to do, move up in society if you can, as opposed to the Old World descended from serfdom, where you were tied to the land. Same with attitudes towards private gun ownership.

      Yes, I know that serfdom was eliminated hundreds of years ago, but I'm thinking that "traditional" basic cultural and social attitudes don't change as quickly as people might think they do.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    49. Re:The scariest words in the English language by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Hmmm some good points. Not entirely sure how being socially and geographically mobile precludes using ID cards for identification though (as opposed to fingerprints).

      As a non-American, I see fingerprints as being much worse than ID cards because:

      - They are permanently attached to you. Someone can confirm your identity even against your wishes, via a finger print. Whereas with a card, if you don't have the card or you choose not to produce it, you are anonymous.

      - You leave evidence of your fingerprints on things you touch. This is obviously useful for investigating crimes, and I guess that's why it's a popular method of storing ID information in the US. But for pure identification purposes, an ID card does the same job and doesn't leave a trail on everything you touch.

      Then again, fingerprints have some advantages:

      - Much more difficult to forge.

      - No risk of losing that form of ID or having it stolen.

      Incidentally, Australia also started as a socially mobile, relatively classless nation. Same as the US in many respects (i.e. a bunch of separate ex-British colonies become independent and formed a union of self-governing States with an overarching Federal government structure). But yet fingerprinting is unheard of here. (We don't have ID cards either though, apart from drivers licences and stuff. ID here is generally just done with passports or birth certificates, when required).

    50. Re:The scariest words in the English language by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Yiddish started as 4th century German written with Hebrew letters instead of in the Roman alphabet. This is a common pattern throughout history for Jews living in foreign lands: they assimilate the local language but write it with their own orthography. Ladino, Yiddish, even the Aramaic of the Second Temple era. As the Jews of Eastern Europe migrated (whether voluntarily or involuntarily) they continued to speak this language, gradually adding loan words from Hebrew, Russian, Polish, and many other languages.

      I don't know why you consider Yiddish to be harsher sounding than other Germanic tongues, however. Maybe it's just the prevalance of the voiceless pharyngeal fricative (the "ch" sound in the Hebrew word "baruch") that you're not used to?

    51. Re:The scariest words in the English language by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      No risk of losing that form of ID

      Erm, you might want to RTFA.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  2. just doing their job by castironpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why think when you can follow protocol?

    --
    mmmm...forbidden donut
    1. Re:just doing their job by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Why think when you can follow protocol?

      I think we're better off this way.

    2. Re:just doing their job by Ceiynt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Protocol, and current law, requires fingerprinting for incoming foreigners. I think DNA should be a good alternative if fingerprints are not available. I wonder what the protocol is for a double arm amputee. What if they had just said, "Oh well, you look sick and you won't do anything, so we'll let you in."
      What if they find out he's on cancer drugs because he's some sort of commie biochem guy and is now sick from that. He's dying and wants to do damage to America. He blows up a school. Oh, well, after a few years they'll find he wasn't printed coming into the country. Parents of kids killed sue because protocol wasn't followed, allowing a dangerous wanted person in the country, just because he was sick.
      Sickness does not beget special treatment. A plan B should be in place for this sort of thing.

    3. Re:just doing their job by treeves · · Score: 1, Troll

      Your sig is right on.
      Why is four hours a huge deal? I've waited longer than that due to weather, airlines overbooking, and other reasons. As long as they treated him decently for the four hours this should not be a big issue.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:just doing their job by Jurily · · Score: 0, Troll

      allowing a dangerous wanted person in the country, just because he was sick

      You know, if they diagnosed me with a terminal disease, my first thought would be "I know, I'll go to the US to rot in jail!"

      Moron. The world doesn't care about your crappy little country. When was the last time a real terrorist was found in a border check?

    5. Re:just doing their job by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why think when you can follow protocol?

      These are low-wage worker bees. The one thing they know for sure is that they won't get into trouble if they follow protocol. Do you really expect them to think? I'm not saying I like the result, but it's clear to me that if a TSA worker has a choice between your discomfort resulting from following protocol, and his if he breaks protocol and the outcome catches somebody's attention, he'll stick with protocol every time.

    6. Re:just doing their job by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Why get paid when you can think?

      I'm guessing that you've never had the fun of working a menial job.

    7. Re:just doing their job by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sickness does not beget special treatment.

      I'll remember that the next time I see a handicapped placard on a car.

    8. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Anyway, the easiest way to tell that someone is a terrorist, is that they *don't* get stopped by the American border guards.

      Any self respecting terrorist will make damm sure their papers are in order and they have a good cover story.

    9. Re:just doing their job by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When was the last time a real terrorist was found in a border check?

      Nine years ago.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    10. Re:just doing their job by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      When was the first time a real terrorist was found in a border check?

    11. Re:just doing their job by Blahgerton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've waited longer than that due to weather...



      I don't mind waiting for weather, which no one can control. I do mind waiting for security theatrics, which the government can control.
    12. Re:just doing their job by darthwader · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not do both? Protocol is: get fingerprint. If you cannot get a fingerprint, then you should use your discretion and initiative, e.g.:
      - carefully and thoroughly interview the visitor.
      - understand and verify the person's reason for not having a fingerprint.
      - understand why the person is visiting the country.
      - determine whether this person is likely to be a risk or not.
      - decide if the person should be allowed into the country despite the lack of fingerprints.

      If the border guards didn't want to think, they would have just deported him right away. They were willing to think. They did think. They interviewed him, thought about what he said,possibly spent some time verifying what he said, maybe consulted other people, and in the end they decided he was an acceptable risk. The process took 4 hours. It seems reasonable to me.

      I think this shows a system working perfectly. The normal case (over 99% of the time, I would guess) is a few seconds for a fingerprint. The exceptions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with a thorough interview and careful consideration (not a stupid snap judgment).

      --
      I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
    13. Re:just doing their job by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I doubt they held the plane for him; they might not even be willing to buy him a ticket on the next one.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    14. Re:just doing their job by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    15. Re:just doing their job by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a realistic scenerio.

      Put down the remote and go camping or do something else for a while. TV is ACTUALLY starting to think for you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:just doing their job by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Hell, I wait longer than four hours to receive medical care at my typical ER.

    17. Re:just doing their job by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      INterestng to note thatb the same evidence to convict him could be used to convicet any model rocket enthusiast.

      Also note he was held for an extend time before trial, a complete violation of his do process.

      The his confessions were used to convict someone else. I would love to see the transcripts of that conversation:
      "Do you know that this man was a terrorist?
      Yes.
      Convict him boys, this un trustworthy terrorist said this other person was guilty.

      4 timers and nitroglycerin? I wonder why no one mention how he was transporting enough nitro to make 4 bombs gig enough to require timers?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:just doing their job by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When government officials detain you for whatever they want, and nobody thinks its a big deal, then truly, the terrorists have won.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:just doing their job by adamchou · · Score: 1

      further more... i'm not sure i'd even want tsa workers to be doing any thinking outside of the box when it comes to the safety and security of my country. tsa has shown time and time again to hire morons. lets let the protocols do the thinking and not the tsa employees.

    20. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      for a cancer patient, four hours wasted is a huge deal.

    21. Re:just doing their job by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      ... or just take a walk one night from somewhere in mexico to somewhere in texas. or california -- probably cali, actually. california loves its illegals, texas doesn't because you can't shoot them.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    22. Re:just doing their job by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I've had 8 hour delays because the FAA grounded my plane because the airline "forgot" schedule routine service for it. Needless to say I won't use that airline again, if my time and safety doesn't mean anything to them. I think we all have airline horror stories about delays and abuse from incompetence.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    23. Re:just doing their job by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are required to give fingerprints when you come to the US. The US is open and clear about that. This man entered the US without fingerprints. That would be roughly equivelent to a returning American without any identification. Would you plaster up "innocent American held for hours" or "idiot with no ID got what he deserved"? He traveled to the US missing a required item, fingerprints. That he was held for a short time (and yes, 4 hours is short when you are essentially in violation of US law, even with good reason) and released when his information could be checked out and verified. That's the system working. There are lots of things to complain about (like fingerprints being required in the first place) but to hold this up as an example of a failure of the system is absurd. To state that they held him for "no reason" is absurd. They had a good reason and held him no longer than necessary to address the issue.

    24. Re:just doing their job by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      That might not be entirely fair. I mean, it's their JOB to be suspicious, and to look for potential trouble. They get a guy with no fingerprints, they have to wonder about it. How would slashdot resolve the issue? Just take the guy's word that he has no fingerprints, because he has cancer? I don't think I would. Accept his prescription as evidence? Nahhh, terrorists have access to doctors and drugs after all. I think that I would want to view his medical record, or call the hospital that has been treating him. If he has no medical record, and if I can't call the hospital, I would DEFINITELY call a supervisor in to decide.

      His appearance might help persuade me, but people go to great lengths, including plastic surgery, to disguise themselves.

      The guy cleared customs in 4 hours? I'll admit, it was a hassle. One he could have probably avoided with a little forethought. NOTE TO SELF: If I become a physical wreck, I should have it well documented before trying to cross any border checks anywhere.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    25. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No When your mothers and daughters are wearing a hijab, and you aren't allowed to drink beer or eat pork, then the terrorists have one. It's not their goal to just take our freedoms away, that is an effect of the real goal, of implementing the totalitarian rule of Islam world wide.

    26. Re:just doing their job by Normal+Dan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if

      What if you trip and fall on a sharp corner and poke your eye out? We should ban sharp corners! What if you trip and fall and hit your head on a wall? We should pad all our walls. Or better yet, ban walking or moving about of any kind. We should all be bound to soft beds. What if your teenage child is sexually attracted to a classmate? We should ban children.

      We could play what if all day, but the point is, you can't keep everyone safe from everything all the time. You have to ask what freedoms are worth giving up for what safeties. I for one would be willing to give up a lot of the "safety" gained from our security theater for the freedom to get on an airplane without taking off my shoes.

      On a side note, didn't we used to belittle commie's for being a "show me your papers" kind of state?

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    27. Re:just doing their job by Jurily · · Score: 1

      INterestng to note thatb the same evidence to convict him could be used to convicet any model rocket enthusiast.

      Really? So, why does a rocket model enthusiast have a fake passport, and how do they know about al-Qaida before 9/11?

      At the U.S. port of entry, upon noticing that he appeared nervous, Customs officers inspected him more closely and asked for further identification. Ressam panicked and attempted to flee. Customs officials then found a legitimate Canadian passport Ressam had registered under a fake name,[2]nitroglycerin, the phone number of Abdel Ghani[8] and four timing devices concealed in a spare tire well of his rented car.

      Ressam began cooperating with investigators in 2001, and revealed that al-Qaida sleeper cells existed within the United States. This information was included in the famous President's Daily Brief delivered to President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.

      This is the official story, of course, but still.

    28. Re:just doing their job by ewenix · · Score: 1

      Cuz, you know...it's not like a terrorist or some wanted felon would think to try and sneak on a plane by taking a drug that masked his fingerprints.
      ...and I'm sure no one would be at all outraged if he managed to get into the cockpit and fly the plane into crash it into something.
      I'm sure you'd give the guy taking the fingerprints a pass on his failure to follow the protocol.

    29. Re:just doing their job by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      When was the last time a real terrorist was found in a border check In 2007, although the terrorist in question had been on ceasefire for a decade, and was by that stage a reasonably respectable member of the political establishment, and had been invited to the US to meet the President.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    30. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who has won when citizens think they have a "right" to totally unrestricted air travel. In which article of the Constitution is that hidden?

    31. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people knew about al-Qaida before 9/11 it's not like they were a big secret. According to the Al-Qaida wikipedia page they could have existed as early as the late 1980s and managed to conduct two successful US Embassy bombings in 1998.

    32. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The solution is to go back to not fingerprinting your *guests* like they were common criminals. I for one have stopped taking our vacations in the USA for precisely this reason. I have nothing to hide, but I refuse to have my fingerprints put on file, and I am avoiding the USA till the country comes to its senses. To my shame, our own government (UK) is nearly as rabid about security.

    33. Re:just doing their job by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      Of course the real genius behind this is that by detaining this guy they've drawn more attention to the existence of drugs that can remove your fingerprints. Now terrorists and other criminals can safely travel by claiming they've recently had cancer, no more suspicious acid burns on your fingertips!

      --
      Nick
    34. Re:just doing their job by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      But it's an item that he could never get! If someone's right hand get cut off in an accident, should someone crippled in that way be considered in violation of US law if they try to enter the country? We scan both hands, you know...

      A person coming to the US is accepting to be subject to biometric scans. If the biometric methodology that we have at the border happens to be unable to cope with someone's disability, it's the system that is the problem for not being able to handle edge cases.

    35. Re:just doing their job by fluffy99 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I wonder what the protocol is for a double arm amputee.

      They do toe prints. Seriously. I don't see the big deal here. Having your all your fingertips looking like they've been sandpapered is suspicious, regardless of the cause. I'm glad they noticed and took some additional steps to verify his identity.

    36. Re:just doing their job by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He traveled to the US missing a required item, fingerprints.

      Not at all. He gave them the fingerprints that he had. The fact that they were useless to ICE is not his fault.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    37. Re:just doing their job by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You are required to give fingerprints when you come to the US. The US is open and clear about that. This man entered the US without fingerprints. That would be roughly equivelent to a returning American without any identification. Would you plaster up "innocent American held for hours" or "idiot with no ID got what he deserved"? He traveled to the US missing a required item, fingerprints.

      Hah, thanks for reminding me that I haven't seen Brazil in a while.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    38. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protocol, and current law, requires fingerprinting for incoming foreigners.

      Very true. I was actually told by a US embassy that if I had any cuts on any of my 10 digits when I went I went in for my visa interview I would be automatically denied. A bit crazy IMO.

    39. Re:just doing their job by DarKlajid · · Score: 0

      The worst part for me (Disclaimer: Not from the US) is, that you just think of the protocol and law first. It seems you don't think about the effects, consequences and you seem to be consent.
      I (hard a hard time to resist writing "for one" after this) won't ever, in my whole life, visit a country that treats me as a criminal at the border. Yeah, I never visited the states and never will unless this is rectified.
      Funny sidenote: Israel is a borderline country regarding any rights. Boarding a plane to IL involves annoying people asking you for your intentions and connections to the country, reasons to travel there. Armed guards with UMPs guard the room after you check in (twice, because you have to work yourself through the usual checkin first and then the Israeli guys think they can do it better). Everything in your luggage is taken apart (most/all of it in front of you, though). My fingerprints and personal details aren't recorded though.
      See - I HATE going through that procedure and I wouldn't visit Israel if the job wouldn't require it. I feel insulted everytime I have to go through this.
      But - and here's the catch - the procedure doesn't involve me giving something unalterable personal details to strangers. US of A, you fail.

    40. Re:just doing their job by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      It says it quite clearly here:

      Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      ...

      Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      I know stare decisis distorts these clear sentences somewhat, but I think any impartial reader ought to conclude that arbitrary searches and detentions conducted without due cause are a violation of our natural rights, even when these searches and detentions are conducted in the course of travel.

      And before you give me that "then don't fly" bullshit: Implied consent is simply a legalistic excuse for tyranny. Consent must always be explicitly given, or the word "content" is useless. "Implied content" is as much an oxymoron as "dry water".

    41. Re:just doing their job by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Reagan had it wrong. The most chilling statement in the world is not "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help", but "Papers, please."

    42. Re:just doing their job by zacronos · · Score: 0, Redundant

      for a cancer patient, four hours wasted is a huge deal.

      Right, because cancer kills you so quickly...

    43. Re:just doing their job by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.

      More than that, I'm sure there's a natural screening process at work that gets rid of inquisitive people with good heads on their shoulders: the monotony of the job. Looking at people's passports all day has got to be one of the most boring jobs out there. Managing people who look at passports all day and dealing with people who have issues with their passports might be a little more interesting, except with all the paranoia I'm sure they're in a straightjacket and have little power to do anything that someone might think will decrease security.

      If you think outside the box, or rather, can think rather than just be a robot, then you're probably going to go crazy and shoot yourself or others if you do it for very long. Or just quit. The ones that left are the ones that are, well, you've seen them if you've ever come through customs.

      I guess if we made the pay a lot higher, we could get some better customs agents who could think and who would be able to resolve odd issues like this faster, but that money would come from taxes. And most of us have fingerprints and can pass through customs just fine, and no system is going to be perfect.

      Bureaucracies are always very efficient at dealing with things they usually deal with, they're terribly inefficient when dealing with anything out of the ordinary, just like any mindless machine. At least they are as quick as they can be when you do fit neatly into their box.

      The lesson here is if you don't have fingerprints and are doing international travel, either contact customs ahead of time or be prepared for a wait.

    44. Re:just doing their job by baka_toroi · · Score: 0, Troll

      So, people with no hands are off-limits? Woah, your level of idiocy is beyond words. You're absolutely retarded. They should change the American law to ban people like you from existing.

    45. Re:just doing their job by ghjm · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the staff at the scene were just doing their job, as they must if they want to keep getting paychecks and putting food on the table.

      The question, to me, is whether this protocol is reasonable. I don't think it is. Being detained and questioned for 4 hours is not something that should happen to an innocent civilian when no crime has been committed. It just so happens that the framers of the US Constitution agreed with me, which is why they wrote the 4th Amendment the way they did.

      I don't buy the argument that all Constitutional rights go out the window when you step into an airport. I could agree that the people's interest in aviation safety justifies some small, marginal increase in police powers. But this does not mean that airports should become "police state lite."

      I also don't buy the argument that Constitutional rights don't apply to foreign nationals. Except where otherwise specified, if we've given them permission to come to the US then we have to extend all applicable rights to them. If we don't want to do that, we shouldn't grant their visas in the first place.

      So what happened was still wrong, even if you can't fault the people on the ground for it.

    46. Re:just doing their job by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      So far as we, the public, know.

    47. Re:just doing their job by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure taking people's fingerprints is all we need to prevent people from getting into the cockpit and fly the plane.

      I can just hear him on the plane now: "I'm hijacking this plane! Don't anybody move, and everybody do as I say, or else! I've got no fingerprints!!!"

      And if it happened, you're right, the first thing people would say is "My god, this person had no fingerprints. However did we let this happen?"

    48. Re:just doing their job by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Wtf? People knew about Al Qaeda way before 2001. The Cole bombings? Nairobi? Do any of these things ring a bell? They were a major terrorist organisation for a good decade before 9/11, and struck mostly at American targets overseas during this time. So the name Osama bin Laden was well known to me prior to 2001, both as the leader of this group, and just because the bin Laden family is quite a well known name anyway due to their massive wealth in the construction and other industries in the mid east.

    49. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its goddamn COWARDS like you, making these assine policies,do everyone a favor and shut up.

    50. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Bullcrap. For one thing, they didn't detain him for "whatever they wanted". He was detained because they couldn't scan his fingerprints. For another thing, he is a foreigner. For foreigners, entering the United States is a privilege. They have no right to be here. If they want to enter this country, they have to abide by our laws. If they don't like it, don't come here.

    51. Re:just doing their job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man you Americans have lousy memories and weird perceptions about terrorists. Hello! 9/11 was the second Al-Qaida attack on the world trade center. The first was back in 1993. Ryder truck full of explosives? Ring any bells. Remember that the US search for Bin Laden has been going on for over a decade now.

    52. Re:just doing their job by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      These are low-wage worker bees.

      If security is important, you don't put it in the hands of low-wage worker bees. You put it in the charge of highly paid, highly skilled, creative and independent thinkers.

      If you want the illusion of security, though, drones will do fine.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    53. Re:just doing their job by hughk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Arguably, Gerry Adams was never really even a terrorist, he was just on the political wing of an organisation that had terrorist connections. That is SInn Fein, never shot at anyone or bombed anyone. Gerry Adams political affiliations were well known as well as the fact that he was travelling under his own name.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    54. Re:just doing their job by tygerstripes · · Score: 1

      I agree entirely. This is the system working as it should.

      Given that - on a busy day - you can already spend more than an hour getting through customs, passport control and so on, being detained for four hours doesn't sound so exceptional.

      I think any sensible, intelligent person in the border-guards' position would have taken about as long to clear this guy. He had no fingerprints, which is cause for some concern and suspicion when this is a requirement for border-entry. Personally, I would have taken all his details, interviewed him to find his explanation - possibly requiring the services of a translator - tracked down a medical or pharmaceutical professional with knowledge of the drug, obtained written confirmation of the side-effects, and finally documented the whole damned thing.

      Given that the article was very light on detail about the detention itself, and focussed more on the medical issues around the drug, people have been very quick to rattle their sabres and beat their chests about how dumb and unreasonable the security procedure was.

      Four hours sounds more than reasonable in the circumstances.

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    55. Re:just doing their job by kedek · · Score: 1

      "Parents of kids killed sue" Here it is again: The children, think of the children!

    56. Re:just doing their job by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      When government officials can detain you whenever they want, they're the terrorists.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    57. Re:just doing their job by TimK65 · · Score: 1

      That would be roughly equivelent to a returning American without any identification.

      You are, apparently, unaware that a U.S. citizen has an absolute legal right to enter the United States at any time, with or without identification. Obviously the person will have to establish, to the satisfaction of border control agents, that he or she is indeed a U.S. citizen, but identification is not actually required.

    58. Re:just doing their job by berend+botje · · Score: 1

      Same here. I don't fly to the US and I won't fly over the US anymore because of the atrocious border shenanigans.

      Instead I'll spend my money in places where they seem to be pleased to have me as their guest. Best of luck with your tanking (tanked?) economy, btw.

    59. Re:just doing their job by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are, apparently, unaware that a U.S. citizen has an absolute legal right to enter the United States at any time, with or without identification.

      No, I am completely aware. That's why it's a valid comparison. A US citizen is *always* welcome. There is no banishment from the US. However, someone arriving that can't prove identity will be given a greater level of scrutiny. There is a requirement that people be fingerprinted. That their prints don't take, that they don't have hands, etc. don't matter. The requirement for printing exists. Any exceptions must be made on a case by case basis, and a short holding period to verify a medical treatment and double checking papers should be expected, and I'm surprised that it was so short. If you are without ID of any kind in a boat with 100 Cuban refugees snagged off the coast of Miami by the Coast Guard, your claims of Americian citizenship may get you treated differently, but I doubt you'd be so lucky as to get released on US soil within 4 hours.

      Obviously the person will have to establish, to the satisfaction of border control agents, that he or she is indeed a U.S. citizen, but identification is not actually required.

      In almost all cases, such things happen only when someone loses ID while outside the US. The ID exists, and is often electronically transferable (even if just crappy fax). For a call to their state or the State department for a copy of the drivers license or passport to be sent over was all it took, it may not be that long. If someone that was born in the US and smuggled out without paperwork were to come back 50 years later, I expect the process would take months, if not longer.

    60. Re:just doing their job by Cederic · · Score: 1

      There is a requirement that people be fingerprinted. That their prints don't take, that they don't have hands, etc. don't matter. The requirement for printing exists.

      He gave his fingerprints. They didn't take. It pretty fucking clearly did matter because they held him for four hours.

      It's a shitty way to treat people visiting your country. Land of the free? Oh how we laughed.

    61. Re:just doing their job by NetLarry · · Score: 1

      My Mom died - relatively quickly - from cancer. What I'd give for four more hours with her!

    62. Re:just doing their job by zacronos · · Score: 1

      While I'm sure it happens (and I am sorry that it happened to you), I don't think that is typical of cancer in general -- and since you said 'relatively quickly' you seem to be acknowledging that your mother's situation wasn't typical. That's what is so scary about cancer to me, and I think most who don't really know that much about it -- the idea that it is a slow, wasting illness with a long, difficult treatment process that can make you feel much worse even if (and it's a significant 'if') they will eventually allow you to feel better.

      I hope this doesn't come across as callous -- please take it as constructive criticism: Four wasted hours isn't a great thing under any circumstances, but if your time would be that much more precious to you (or those you love) after being diagnosed with a terminal condition, then perhaps you (or they) aren't making the best use of your time before the diagnosis. You or those you love could (for example) be hit by a car and lose any chance to 'wrap things up' in your life -- if there are things you'd want to do or say before you die, please think about doing them sooner rather than later.

    63. Re:just doing their job by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      requires fingerprinting for incoming foreigners.

      Actually, many manual farmers don't have good fingerprints. Fingerprints are actually remarkably easy to rub off.

      I think DNA should be a good alternative if fingerprints are not available.

      That's because you've been watching too many CSI movies. Think of the outcome you want to achieve before you start cataloging everything. There is an actual cost to every measure we want to take.

  3. Off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for the off topic post does anyone else get this when clicking "Read more" on every article?

    Connection Interrupted
    The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.
    The network link was interrupted while negotiating a connection. Please try again.

    1. Re:Off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did until I told noscript to allow "fsdn.com".

    2. Re:Off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to be related to using NoScript and not allowing fsdn.com

    3. Re:Off topic by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      You need to either tell noscript to allow fsdn.com, as others have said, or go to your user preferences and turn on the "classic index" (or words to that effect). Either one works, but the "classic index" solution seems to work better -- I was missing the subject line bars over each message until I switched to the "classic index". (You don't need to allow fsdn.com if you have the "classic index" switched on.)

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  4. Can't be the first by georgenh16 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How does someone with their extremities amputated get through an airport?

    1. Re:Can't be the first by Morphine007 · · Score: 5, Funny

      probably a wheelchair

    2. Re:Can't be the first by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      Grease up and slide through the air vents?

    3. Re:Can't be the first by internerdj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a friend in high school whose family owned a catfish restaurant. He had been helping out at the restaurant for many years and by the time he was 17-18 had no discernible fingerprints either. It most certainly cannot be the first case where someone passed through without fingerprints. It is news because there was a single idiot working at that location and he couldn't be bothered to actually do any critical reasoning.

    4. Re:Can't be the first by thhamm · · Score: 1

      we have schäuble in germany. that is proof you can wreak havoc in a weelchair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%A4uble#Criticism

      oh my. i shouldn't have said tha ... NO CARRIER.

    5. Re:Can't be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wheelchair? Clever dick..

    6. Re:Can't be the first by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      How does someone with their extremities amputated get through an airport?

      There's probably some procedure in place for people without fingers. However, the security droids' gears ground to a halt when confronted by a person with fingers but without fingerPRINTs. Didn't compute, so something shorted out and the error trapping routine kicked in. Sadly, the error trapping routine consists entirely of "ZOMG! PROBABLE TERRORIST!"

    7. Re:Can't be the first by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > Subsequently, Schäuble suggested to change Bundesrat's voting procedures to discount abstention votes from the total

      Wow...

      > Schäuble was the target of an assassination attempt by Dieter Kaufmann,[11] who fired three shots at Schäuble after an election campaign event in Oppenau, injuring a bodyguard and Schäuble's spinal cord and face severely. Schäuble has been paralysed and confined to a wheelchair ever since. The assassin was declared mentally ill by the judges and committed to a clinic because of psychoneurosis.

      If Schauble keeps doing stuff like that "changing vote procedures" thing, people might start to think the Kaufmann wasn't so mentally ill after all...

      --
    8. Re:Can't be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany, it's unconstitutional to literally put someone behind bars for life as punishment, without the possibility of parole. When you're considered mentally ill, this isn't true, though; you can be held for as long as you're deemed to still be a threat.

      Still wondering why the would-be assassin of a high-ranking politician was declared mentally ill?

    9. Re:Can't be the first by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      probably a wheelchair

      Well yeah. and the wheelchair doesn't go through x-ray nor does the person in it, plus you don't queue for security -- probably the quickest/easiest way to get airside short of wearing a police uniform.

    10. Re:Can't be the first by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Please excuse my ignorance-
          How does working in a catfish restaurant destroy once fingerprints?

    11. Re:Can't be the first by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The man was held for four hours to verify he wasn't a security threat, the excuse he gave wasn't listed in the product packaging for the drug he was taking and the report of this incident suggests that a letter from his doctors which he didn't have would have been enough to alleviate the problem when traveling to the US.

      I see no mention outside of his detainment and the verification of his situation that he was treated badly or disrespectful in any way. Or is your "ZOMG! PROBABLE TERRORIST!" comment code for your belief that any foreign national who appears to be hiding his identity should be allowed into the country without questions? I mean seriously, the only thing that makes this a somewhat news worthy incident is that it was caused by a cancer drug that didn't list the problem on it's package labeling and no one thought of a doctors letter until after the fact.

    12. Re:Can't be the first by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Catfish are toxic. Apparently they have such toxicity that they burn of your fingerprints if you handle enough of them.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    13. Re:Can't be the first by internerdj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fried catfish. His years of being burned by the oil had burned away the layer of skin responsible for fingerprints and built up scar tissue in its place. If you looked there were still fingerprint patterns; they just didn't form the typical ridges used for fingerprinting or leaving fingerprints.

    14. Re:Can't be the first by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And here, ladies and gentleman, is a person that's NEVER done a fish fry or turkey deep fry.

      Here sir, let me put your fingers NEAR this FOUR HUNDRED DEGREE HOT OIL.

      Sorry if you get any spatters on yourself or if you burn yourself touching the frying basket where you shouldn't.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:Can't be the first by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      When I lose my legs, I need to go to your airport. I've seen wheelchaired persons wait in line, and then be forced to get out of their wheelchair while TSA agents flipped the thing upside down to look at it, and then the person *walked* through the X-ray machine.

      Obviously, this wouldn't be the case with a double amputee, but I think if you can walk, even a little bit, the "I'm going in a wheelchair" scheme won't save you any time...

    16. Re:Can't be the first by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      In that case, it's pretty obvious to a naive observer why no fingerprints are available. I would imagine that if you have some less obvious medical condition that makes it difficult/painful to take fingerprints, then carrying some sort of a doctor's note would make your trip a whole lot easier.

    17. Re:Can't be the first by pwfffff · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Catfish are known to be radioactive at short ranges while alive. Apparently he touched too many catfish.

      (Hey, there's two other explanations here modded to +3 and ONE of them has to be bullshit. Figured I'd give it a try.)

    18. Re:Can't be the first by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      Catfish are toxic... what retarded moderator put this as "interesting" rather than "funny"? Seriously... homeland security agents aren't the only ones lacking any critical thought

    19. Re:Can't be the first by Nutria · · Score: 1

      It is news because there was a single idiot working at that location and he couldn't be bothered to actually do any critical reasoning.

      You mean the drones who said, "no fingerprints, no entry" and turned him away?

      Or the responsible employees who checked out his story and then let him thru?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    20. Re:Can't be the first by Taibhsear · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, I'm stumped.
      (ducks)

    21. Re:Can't be the first by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      The whole reason we have this law is to keep all Arab chronic masturbators out of our country!

    22. Re:Can't be the first by adolf · · Score: 1

      My dad has no useful fingerprints on his hand. His skin is so dry on his hands that the entire gripping surface is more like one giant callus, worn smooth from manual labor, than actual living skin cells. I've seen him use his bare hands to sand a piece of wood.

      That fingerprints are useful and unique, does not make them universal. :)

    23. Re:Can't be the first by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Or is your "ZOMG! PROBABLE TERRORIST!" comment code for your belief that any foreign national who appears to be hiding his identity should be allowed into the country without questions?

      No, it's just the last line of the post, the entirety of which was code for my belief that a job which was created in the early days after 9/11, whose procedures can be altered by a sufficiently panicky "Breaking News" segment and whose wage is quite likely far below what one would expect for a job of that sort isn't going to attract Nobel Prize winners.

    24. Re:Can't be the first by coolsnowmen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've fried a turkey; I guess I'm just smart enough not to fuck up my fingers (I use a digital thermometer so it is easy to tell when oil is too hot to touch). Also, the parent said nothing about fried catfish; I just figured it was some fresh fish place down by a lake.

    25. Re:Can't be the first by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I've seen wheelchaired persons wait in line, and then be forced to get out of their wheelchair while TSA agents flipped the thing upside down to look at it, and then the person *walked* through the X-ray machine.

      I'd love to see them try that with one of my cow-orkers. He's not an amputee, but his legs are totally paralyzed. He has a motorized chair that probably weighs at least 200 pounds, and he probably weighs close to 300.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    26. Re:Can't be the first by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The US has been stopping and inspecting identities at the borders for the better part of a century now. It has done so in some form or another since the beginning of the country in which the first congress passed a law creating the customs inspections and allowed the inspection of crew and passenger lists.

      This was not anything that hasn't happened before 9/11. The connection you want to put there just doesn't exist.

  5. Best country in the world by mofag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I always feel so welcome entering the US :)

    Seriously though, how often do border guards ever catch anyone? All that frisking and undressing and do they EVER catch anyone? I feel certain that if they ever did, it would be all over the media. As evidenced here, this pointless pompous nonsense reaches the pinacle of its expression on the way into the US.

    1. Re:Best country in the world by RockMFR · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, they catch shampoo smugglers all the time.

    2. Re:Best country in the world by evil_aar0n · · Score: 1

      Not the same thing, but there _were_ those "mental giants" that recently tried to blow up a temple in NYC, and shoot down a military plane with a rocket launcher. Thing is, these geniuses didn't realize that they were being scammed by the Feds the entire time: the "C4" wasn't real, nor was the "rocket."

      Ok, they had intent, and their motive was certainly questionable. But their means were non-existent, and they weren't even smart enough to realize that. At best, these punks should be called "unsocial retards," because they don't quite reach the bar for serious criminals.

      Didn't matter: the papers were all full of chest pounding Feds congratulating themselves on catching these "terrorists."

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    3. Re:Best country in the world by joebok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, yes:

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2001/1125/cover.html

      An alert border guard caught a guy trying to get across the border with a bunch of bomb stuff. This case with the finger prints doesn't sound like a case of anybody being "alert" - but for my money, training people to detect and investigate is far better than the ridiculous security theater we usually see - taking off shoes and having jars of plum jam confiscated.

    4. Re:Best country in the world by gujo-odori · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure, they were dumb. Most criminals are. Most terrorists aren't exactly the sharpest marbles in the sack, either. How dumb do you have to be for someone to convince you that blowing yourself up or flying an airplane into a building is a good idea and will help you achieve your goals?

      However, they only failed because the supplier they found was an undercover Fed rather than someone who would supply actual weapons. As for reality, the rocket was real; it was just disarmed. As for the C-4, it's probably possible to supply fake C-4 that behaves just like the real thing except it won't actually explode. It's not surprising that they didn't test the stuff; they had no reason to, believing it to be authentic, and testing C-4 is likely to attract a lot of attention.

      The bottom line is, they *are* terrorists. They did have a concrete plan to carry out attacks. They attempted to carry out that plan. They were caught by good undercover police work. To try and say they aren't terrorists because they were arrested before they could blow anything up is like trying to say somebody isn't a drug dealer because he gets arrested after selling to a narc.

    5. Re:Best country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Fortunately for you, Federal authorities will continue their work so fools like you can continue to keep bitching about how pointless their work is.

    6. Re:Best country in the world by tsotha · · Score: 1

      What do you want them to do? We had a guy who hid a big enough bomb in his shoes to (probably) take a plane down. And we had a full-blown plot to sneak binary explosives on in shampoo bottles. What's your solution to stopping those kinds of attacks without bothering anybody's plum jam?

    7. Re:Best country in the world by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      "And we had a full-blown plot to sneak binary explosives on in shampoo bottles."
      No, you didn't. It has been proven several time this plan simply could not have worked.
      For example it takes several hours turn the sepperate liquids in to an explosive. Someone might notice if the seat next to yours looked like a grade 10 chem class.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    8. Re:Best country in the world by Xebikr · · Score: 1

      There was only one instance of each method even attempted, as far as I can determine. Both of them were foiled. Were there any successful attacks using those two methods prior to the implementation of the shoe removal and no liquids security measures? Have they caught anyone even trying? If not, then the current practice of having passengers remove their shoes and the banning of plum jam are unnecessary.

    9. Re:Best country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would have still found this stuff out with the old not-pinapple-up-your-ass techniques.

    10. Re:Best country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that frisking and undressing and do they EVER catch anyone?

      Actually, yes:

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2001/1125/cover.html [nwsource.com]

      And if you read that article, the frisking and undressing, and all the elaborate procedures failed to detect this guy. What it came down to was simple, old-fashioned gut instinct on the part of a human. He asked questions, noticed the guy behaving strangely, and they were going to proceed to the searching stage when the guy ran. So as a detection measure all the other security failed, and the original posters question still stands- when have all the elaborate security procedures netted a terrorist?

    11. Re:Best country in the world by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      I don't know all the details of the case, but it sounds like they were entrapped. Offer a missile and c4 to 100 random people, and at least 25 of them will accept . At least 5 of those will be pissed off at "the government" for something and divulge their revenge fantasy. (These rates are higher for Muslim men of a certain age) The FBI went through an elaborate scheme of selling them deactivated weapons just to make it seem like there was an actual threat. Since they were charged with conspiracy, they could have been arrested without the props.

    12. Re:Best country in the world by syousef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most terrorists aren't exactly the sharpest marbles in the sack, either

      Sharp marbles? That explains it! No wonder this guy's got worn down fingerprints! Give him the round smooth marbles we use to use when I was a kid and it'll all be fine.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    13. Re:Best country in the world by gujo-odori · · Score: 2, Insightful

      25 out of 100 random people will accept an offer of C4 from a stranger? I call BS. If you told me 25/100 people were stupid, I'd believe you. But not *that* stupid.

      Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.

      Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment. Cf. John Delorean's coke bust. Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.

    14. Re:Best country in the world by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I think your numbers FAR exaggerate the number of lunatics, and even if it wasn't, people who gladly accept rockets and explosives while spouting how they want to overthrow the government and commit mass murder... might justifiably be viewed a threat.

    15. Re:Best country in the world by joebok · · Score: 1

      Just because a guy put a bomb in his shoe does not mean the next person will put a bomb in their shoe. If the confiscated liquids and plum jams are so dangerous that they can't be allowed on planes, why are they just chucked in a bin and not disposed of by the bomb squad? Answer, because it is total BS.

      If you are really interested, here is some good info:

      http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html

    16. Re:Best country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9 Years ago when this actually happened the US wasn't taking biometric data from everybody who wanted to visit US. Yeah they caught a terrorist at the border, but don't for a moment believe that any of these modern "security measures" had anything to do with it.

    17. Re:Best country in the world by evil_aar0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You miss my point. This was more like a boxing match between someone incapable of defending himself and a heavyweight champion. The champ won - surprise! - and then bragged about it.

      Calling these guys terrorists is about as accurate as calling the Keystone Kops "law enforcement officials." Put it this way: the Feds weren't afraid of supplying this material to these guys and letting them loose. If they were potentially a real threat, the Feds would've picked them up well before they even got close to the targets. But they let them go through with their plot, parking the car out front, scaring the bejeezuz out of the neighborhood, etc. Grab your popcorn! We're watching Security Theater!!

      I s'pose picking the low-hanging fruit still gets the fruit, but it's nothing to crow about.

      --
      Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
    18. Re:Best country in the world by nbauman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.

      Actually, the informant, Shahed Hussain, did go around saying things like that, in this case and another one, and federal agents have set up other people like that.

      Hussain was a Pakistani immigrant who went undercover for the feds seven years ago to avoid deportation after being convicted of fraud. He was going around to mosques offering people money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23informant.html And by being a government informant, (1) Hussain was getting paid a lot of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I recall) (2) He got out of prosecution and possibly prison for his own crimes (3) Instead of being deported, he was allowed to stay in the country, which for a lot of immigrants is most important of all.

      Hussain was responsible for a conviction in another case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html in which he entrapped two men who never had anything to do with terrorism before, and who never could have gotten such weapons before, by loaning them $50,000.

      One of the plotters in the current case needed money because his brother was sick. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/25/2009-05-25_terror_plotter_did_it_for_me_brother.html

      Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment.

      Well, depending on the circumstances it can be entrapment. If the person had no predisposition to commit a crime, and the FBI agent entices him by using an unreasonable amount of pressure, such as offering a huge amount of money, it can be entrapment. It's a jury question.

      Cf. John Delorean's coke bust.

      DeLorean was acquitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Lorean That's a good example of entrapment, because DeLorean was offered an unreasonable amount of money, in desperate circumstances, to do something he would not otherwise do.

      Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.

      If someone solicits a prostitute, that would show predisposition to commit a crime.

      In contrast, a person who has never committed an act of terrorism, and has nothing to do with terrorists, who is enticed to take a large amount of money and then informed that it is for terrorist purposes, is entrapped, under the law.

      Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate juries with prejudicial issues, such as the defendant's race and religion. Right now, many jurors will be prejudiced against Muslim Arabs, and it's relatively easy for a prosecutor to get a conviction against them by using scare tactics.

      A good example was Hemant Lakhani, whose case was the subject of a good program on This American LIfe. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 One of the jurors agreed that he was entrapped, but she felt pressured by the other jurors to go along. Most people who listen to that broadcast would come to the same conclusion. But Lakhani is in jail for the rest of his life.

      Next time around, the time will come for them to be prejudiced against another ethnic group or religion.

      What was your race and religion again?

    19. Re:Best country in the world by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Since the timing is incredibly convenient and the suspects appear to be a pack of idiots led by the nose until the evidence was placed in their hands it's starting to look a bit look like an old fashioned third world show trial effort to show police work is being done . Hopefully we'll all know for sure when things start coming out in court - but that will be after decisions are made about closing Gitmo or not, funding etc.
      People have to remember than many of these organisations in the area between law enforcement and intelligence have had minimal or no supervision and oversight for a long time and stand to lose a lot if things change. Even the FBI will lose a lot if they are moved into a law enforcement role following due process (which is what most people think the FBI should be instead of the weird thing it actually is).
      Anyway I disagree - they are not terrorists until a court says they are and until then they are suspects that look like a bunch of dumb petty criminals. Think back to the days of military export entrapment operations when a lot of resources were expended on setting up the crimes that wouldn't have otherwise happened and in the meantime cutting staff that were actually on the ground doing intelligence gathering or actual law enforcement investigations.

    20. Re:Best country in the world by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected on the Delorean case.

      WRT the current case, however, I believe this is not entrapment. If I offer you $50,000 to kill someone and you take the money and attempt to carry out the murder, only to be arrested by police who are waiting at the would-be crime scene because I was an informant, you weren't entrapped. Anyone who accepts money to commit murder already has a reasonable predisposition to do it, IMO. Like you say, it's a case for a jury, but that's a jury I'd like to be on.

      You couldn't offer me $50,000 to kill someone, no matter what financial straights I was in. Yes, I know this. I lost a home that I had a great deal of money invested in, and if someone had offered me enough money to make the back payments and pay off the mortgage in exchange for blowing up $TARGET, I would not have done it. I doubt I'll ever be able to buy a house again. Most of our life's savings were in it, and I'll reach retirement age before I have that much cash again. But I wouldn't have killed or stolen for the money to save it. In fact, I would have told him to let me think about it, then I would have called the FBI myself.

      You show me a person who says "Yeah, sure" to an offer of blowing up a Synagogue for cash and I'll show you a person with a predisposition to do that anyway.

      Prejudice against Muslims? Hardly. You *have* noticed that the people going around doing this are primarily young, primarily Muslim, primarily male, right? And that even among Muslims who don't do things like that, there is a lot of sympathy for those who do, and a lot of baseless hatred of Jews in general and Israel in particular. To suspect young, Muslim males as a group of being likely terrorists is hardly prejudice. If you removed all of the Islamist terror groups around the world, you'd remove almost all the terror groups, period. Sure, there are a few others, like the Tamil Tigers (now either defunct or nearly so), and the Shining Path group, but they are the exceptions to the rule. Nearly all terrorists are trying to advance radical Islam.

      Yes, it sucks when truly innocent Muslims have to endure extra scrutiny, but the only way to tell the good from the bad is through scrutiny, and it would be really helpful if the non-radical, non-terrorist-sympathizing Muslims (that is, the global minority of them) would come out and strongly condemn terror, but they're pretty silent on that issue. No surprise, then, when they all get looked at as being more part of the problem than part of the solution. If moderate Muslims want Islam to be respected rather than suspected, they need to stand up and denounce terror and denounce terrorists. Even when those terrorists are state actors.

      What's my race and religion? You can call me Irish Catholic. In some parts of the world, that might have gotten me some extra scrutiny once upon a time and I wouldn't call it unfair. People with names like mine and a religion like mine were planting bombs in London, and some here in the US were helping to finance them. If our terrorism problems here were with people of Irish ancestry and Catholic religion, I'd be quite understanding if that got me secondary screening when I fly, and I wouldn't be whining that it's racism or prejudice.

      Here's another good example: my wife is from a country that has a lot of people who would like to live in the United States. There's a lot of visa fraud and as much illegal immigration as they can manage. We met when I was living there and already had one kid and another on the way when we decided to move back to the US. Even with those clear bona fides, the process to get her a spouse visa took a very long time. When I secured a good job in the States, we had to live apart for nearly 16 months, and I went a whole year without seeing her or our kids - from the time the second one was born until she got her visa. Getting a green card took another year and change after that, more paperwork, and yet another interview. At least she could do that part in the States.

      Despite all that hassle and the rea

    21. Re:Best country in the world by tsotha · · Score: 1

      This is wrong. Yes, it's very difficult to make a stable binary explosive in a reasonable amount if time. The trick with liquid binary explosives is getting them not to blow up as you're mixing them. But this is not a problem, really, if you're a suicide bomber.

    22. Re:Best country in the world by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You show me a person who says "Yeah, sure" to an offer of blowing up a Synagogue for cash and I'll show you a person with a predisposition to do that anyway.

      If you had read psychologists like Stanley Milgram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_milgram you'd know that most people could be manipulated to do exactly what the Nazis did by someone who is a skillful manipulator -- and informers are skillful manipulators. If you read testimony at these trials, you'll see that the defendants made innocent decisions that would have seemed reasonable at the time, and one thing led to another.

      If you had been in that situation, an undercover agent might have manipulated you into going along with the plot.

      Prejudice against Muslims? Hardly. You *have* noticed that the people going around doing this are primarily young, primarily Muslim, primarily male, right?

      Prejudice unsupported by facts. The Israelis commit just as much terrorism as Arabs and Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigal_Amir http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/005/2002 And the U.S. has supported many terrorist movements against Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

      If moderate Muslims want Islam to be respected rather than suspected, they need to stand up and denounce terror and denounce terrorists. Even when those terrorists are state actors.

      That is such bullshit I don't want to go through the details. You'll have to look up Gershom Gorenberg's articles yourself. Let's just say that I was working to free Muslims from jail who were imprisoned for denouncing terrorism.

      What's my race and religion? You can call me Irish Catholic. In some parts of the world, that might have gotten me some extra scrutiny once upon a time and I wouldn't call it unfair. People with names like mine and a religion like mine were planting bombs in London, and some here in the US were helping to finance them. If our terrorism problems here were with people of Irish ancestry and Catholic religion, I'd be quite understanding if that got me secondary screening when I fly, and I wouldn't be whining that it's racism or prejudice.

      There's at least one case that I can remember of a group of innocent Irish people who were convicted of terrorism charges in England and who served decades in jail, where one of them died, until it turned out that the scientific evidence against them, of nitrates, was faulty and they were released.

      According to this article in Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/1003657/ entrapment requires 3 things:

      1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.

      2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime.

      3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so.

      Many of these terrorist cases meet all 3 requirements.

      Repeatedly, an informer went to American residents who had previously had no contact with Islamic terrorism.

      Repeatedly, the informer came up with the plot, and encouraged the defendant to participate by offering him substantial amounts of money.

      Repeatedly, the defendant had never participated in this kind of activity before, and would never have done so if the informer hadn't suggested it and facilitated it, often by providing bogus "weapons."

      The prosecutors claim that the defendants would or might have some day participated in terrorism anyway. That's speculation which would only convince jurors who are prejudiced to believe that Muslims or Arabs are terrorists.

      For example, listen to the case of Hemant Lakhani on This American Life. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 .

    23. Re:Best country in the world by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Just because a guy put a bomb in his shoe does not mean the next person will put a bomb in their shoe.

      Doesn't mean he won't, either. Richard Reid's shoe bomb came very, very close to going off on the plane. Are we going to pretend he's the only one intelligent enough to put a bomb in his shoe?

      If the confiscated liquids and plum jams are so dangerous that they can't be allowed on planes, why are they just chucked in a bin and not disposed of by the bomb squad? Answer, because it is total BS.

      That doesn't follow at all. An explosive on a plane at altitude is far, far more dangerous than one in the bin at the airport. Especially if it's a binary explosive that hasn't been mixed.

      I've read Schneir's piece, and I don't find it compelling. Yes, yes, of course you're better off breaking up those sorts of plots before they get to the airport. But our ability to do that is nowhere near 100% effective. We still need to take prudent measures at the airport itself. It's a hassle to leave your shampoo at home, and it's a hassle to have your shoes swabbed for nitrates, but neither of those measures is particularly expensive or a huge imposition.

    24. Re:Best country in the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.

      Actually, the informant, Shahed Hussain, did go around saying things like that, in this case and another one, and federal agents have set up other people like that.

      Hussain was a Pakistani immigrant who went undercover for the feds seven years ago to avoid deportation after being convicted of fraud. He was going around to mosques offering people money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23informant.html And by being a government informant, (1) Hussain was getting paid a lot of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I recall) (2) He got out of prosecution and possibly prison for his own crimes (3) Instead of being deported, he was allowed to stay in the country, which for a lot of immigrants is most important of all.

      Hussain was responsible for a conviction in another case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html in which he entrapped two men who never had anything to do with terrorism before, and who never could have gotten such weapons before, by loaning them $50,000.

      One of the plotters in the current case needed money because his brother was sick. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/25/2009-05-25_terror_plotter_did_it_for_me_brother.html

      Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment.

      Well, depending on the circumstances it can be entrapment. If the person had no predisposition to commit a crime, and the FBI agent entices him by using an unreasonable amount of pressure, such as offering a huge amount of money, it can be entrapment. It's a jury question.

      Cf. John Delorean's coke bust.

      DeLorean was acquitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Lorean That's a good example of entrapment, because DeLorean was offered an unreasonable amount of money, in desperate circumstances, to do something he would not otherwise do.

      Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.

      If someone solicits a prostitute, that would show predisposition to commit a crime.

      In contrast, a person who has never committed an act of terrorism, and has nothing to do with terrorists, who is enticed to take a large amount of money and then informed that it is for terrorist purposes, is entrapped, under the law.

      Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate juries with prejudicial issues, such as the defendant's race and religion. Right now, many jurors will be prejudiced against Muslim Arabs, and it's relatively easy for a prosecutor to get a conviction against them by using scare tactics.

      A good example was Hemant Lakhani, whose case was the subject of a good program on This American LIfe. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 One of the jurors agreed that he was entrapped, but she felt pressured by the other jurors to go along. Most people who listen to that broadcast would come to the same conclusion. But Lakhani is in jail for the rest of his life.

      Next time around, the time will come for them to be prejudiced against another ethnic group or religion.

      What was your race and religion again?

      Enough with your "facts", you godless commie bastard! Anyone can prove anything they want when supported by the "facts".

    25. Re:Best country in the world by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Have they caught anyone even trying? If not, then the current practice of having passengers remove their shoes and the banning of plum jam are unnecessary.

      No, that's pretty much a logical fallacy. Even though the shoebomb plot wasn't successful in downing the plane, it was successful in getting a bomb onto the plane. From a security standpoint that's the important part. You check peoples' shoes because that's a proven, successful way of sneaking a bomb on to a plane in the absence of those measures.

    26. Re:Best country in the world by hughk · · Score: 1

      The trick with liquid binary explosives is getting them not to blow up as you're mixing them. But this is not a problem, really, if you're a suicide bomber.

      Except if the mix was only partial when the detonation occurred, the explosive power could be drastically reduced.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    27. Re:Best country in the world by gujo-odori · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > If you had been in that situation, an undercover agent might have manipulated you into going along with the plot.

      I have been in situations of great financial need, but there's no way *anyone* could have manipulated me into doing something like that. Not for love, money, drugs, alcohol, pussy, or $NAME_YOUR_PRICE. I'd be willing to die first, and I have, on at least one occasion, looked death right in the eye. Sure, I was scared, but I made it.

      > There's at least one case that I can remember of a group of innocent Irish people who were convicted of terrorism charges in England

      Totally non sequitur. Your point is?

      > Prejudice unsupported by facts. The Israelis commit just as much terrorism as Arabs and Muslims

      I don't just call bullshit, I call fucking bullshit. Terrorist Israelis are the minority, whereas Muslims who either are terrorists or support terrorists are the majority of their faith. The link you cite proves my point, not yours. Yigal Amir was notable not for the fact that he assassinated Rabin, but for the fact that such things are extraordinary among Israelis. It's SOP in the Islamic world. Not that Yigal Amir was a terrorist; he was just an assassin. Terrorists kill people who are not directly involved, in the hope that others will influence those who are directly involved. Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a terrorist either; like YA, he was just an assassin.

      > Many of these terrorist cases meet all 3 requirements.

      They don't meet point 3.

      There's no way anyone who wasn't sympathetic to that kind of activity would agree to do it for just money. More than a few people who make their living through stripping, prostitution, etc., do so only because of circumstances. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a stripper or prostitute who would whack somebody for money. You could find one, but not easily. But go looking at young Muslim males and you won't have to look too hard to find somebody who'll whack somebody for ideology.

      I don't know how familiar you are with the Koran, but I suspect the answer is not very. You ought to check it out, it might surprise you. Unlike New Testament (AKA the Christian Bible), and beyond what you can find in the Old Testament (AKA the Hebrew Bible), the Koran not only condones conquest and conversion at the point of the sword, it's very clear that Mohammed himself not only supported such things, but endorsed them. His followers, in the early days, supported themselves by robbing caravans going to and from Mecca, which was not at that time a Muslim holy city. Not only did they do so, but they did so with Mohammed's blessing. A base point of Christianity is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A base point of Islam is "Do unto others, so long as they aren't Muslims. Or even if they are, so long as they are Muslims who believe differently than you do." Mohammed's followers fell to killing one another as soon as he was gone. That's how Shia and Sunni got started, and over all the centuries from then until now, the only place they've buried the hatchet is in each others' heads.

    28. Re:Best country in the world by nbauman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If anyone wants to look at the facts and decide whether I'm right or gujo-odori is right, my position is supported by:

      1. Israelis commit just as much terrorism as the Palestinians (and the Israelis have killed far more Palestinians than vice versa)
      http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/005/2002

      2. The U.S. government commits entrapment by having its paid informers entice otherwise law-abiding Muslims into breaking the law.
      http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088

      3. Most normal people will commit war crimes just like the Nazis did if they are placed in an environment like the Nazis were in. This was proven by the social scientists Stanley Milgram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment and Philip Zimbardo. http://www.prisonexp.org/ . This was confirmed by the real-world experience of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      These government agents are professionals at manipulating people. You are an amateur at defending yourself from their manipulation. You don't know what you could be manipulated or tricked into doing.

      The government informer threatened to kill John DeLorean's daughter. Would you have let them kill your family?

      You can't condemn someone else by saying that you would never have done such a thing. You don't know.

    29. Re:Best country in the world by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, Slashdot where nothing will get you a flamebait mod faster than telling the truth.

  6. if I had cancer, I'd want to be held too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if I had cancer, I'd like a hug and someone to hold me also

  7. Technology-determined guilt or innocence by BetterSense · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When I was getting my CCW permit, which requires fingerprinting, there was an old man there. The police fingerprinters were failing to get fingerprints from him, I assumed because of his old wrinkled skin. Since he legally cannot get a CCW permit without fingerprints on file, he was basically being discriminated against on the basis that the fancy fingerprinting machine that the police station bought happened to not do the correct song and dance when he put his fingers on it.

    It's similar to the situation with breathalyzers where if the machine beeps or not can be the difference between you going to jail or driving home. Our judges have been replaced by robotic imposters, and I imagine it will get worse in the future.

    1. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by againjj · · Score: 1

      It's similar to the situation with breathalyzers where if the machine beeps or not can be the difference between you going to jail or driving home. Our judges have been replaced by robotic imposters, and I imagine it will get worse in the future.

      Except with breath analyzers you do not have to take it, and can request a real test at the station, before they can decide to jail you.

    2. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should ban people from government positions who make these bad unconstitutional decisions / pass unconstitutional laws. Then at least when those who follow the actions (police/border guards) of these people the courts will get rid of them.

    3. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory:

      I, for one, welcome our new robotic imposter overloads!

      Hail Xenu!

    4. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by BAKup · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's wrong, in most states, if you refuse to blow at the scene, you lose your license right then and there, and can be convicted of DUI for refusal to blow. It's a nasty thing that has come about since the Supreme Court decided there's a DUI exception to the Constitution.

       

    5. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Except with breath analyzers you do not have to take it, and can request a real test at the station, before they can decide to jail you.

      In many places, refusing the roadside breathalizer will result in criminal penalties. It does not matter that you are requesting/demanding a blood test. Refusing to take the roadside breathalizer can be a felony. I think you can get your own test after, but if they request and you refuse, it's a crime.

    6. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IANAL, but my understanding is that refusal laws apply only after an arrest. Refusal to take a roadside breathalyzer does, however, constitute probably cause for arrest. Once you are placed under arrest as a result of either refusing or failing a roadside breathalyzer, you are given an evidentiary test, using with a more reliable machine. Refusing this test is what triggers the refusal laws.

      Again, IANAL, but it seems better to always refuse a test if you know you're going to fail. Failure to blow is a civil penalty. A DUI is a criminal conviction that can haunt you for the rest of your life.

    7. Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence by Chiindi · · Score: 1

      Screw CCW! I carry without and most of the time in the open. You have to take charge of your own security. If the 'authorities' attempt jerk you, show them what a .45 can do up close and personal!

  8. That's Nothin' by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once I saw this movie, and some policemen caught Santa Claus, and he had snowflake fingerprints. Seriously. You should see it.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:That's Nothin' by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      Was that the one with Tim Allen?

    2. Re:That's Nothin' by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. It was a long time ago, when I was a kid, so I don't remember it. Otherwise I would have linked to it. Maybe the Tim Allen one does it too, but then they are copying someone else.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:That's Nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Saw it last week. The movie is Ernest Saves Christmas.

    4. Re:That's Nothin' by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heaven help me for knowing this, but I'm pretty sure it was Ernest Saves Christmas.

    5. Re:That's Nothin' by legirons · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to get surgery or laser-work which just replaces your fingerprints with abusive messages directed towards anyone scanning them?

    6. Re:That's Nothin' by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      yes

    7. Re:That's Nothin' by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Laser? Just get a razor blade.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:That's Nothin' by Hillgiant · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nah. Got to be lasers. Preferably attached to the head of a freakin' shark.

      --
      -
    9. Re:That's Nothin' by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      I sense a new market just waiting to be tapped into!...


      ... or maybe it's just gas

  9. Headline on Fox News tonight: by RandoX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Terrible New Terrorism Drug Helps Terrorists Evade Identification And Cause More Terrible Terror.

    1. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like MSNBC to me.

    2. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > Terrible New Terrorism Drug Helps Terrorists Evade Identification And Cause More Terrible Terror.

      I know that stuff like the above passes for fall down funny amongst the Daily Show/Colbert/Kos set but really, you guys need to stop hitting the bong so hard it fries yer brains out.

      Just how common do you thing people with no fingerprints are? Don't you WANT something that odd to raise a red flag? If this sort of thing isn't supposed to raise a flag, just what in your bizarro world would?

      While TFA says the Dr. recommends patients carry a letter explaining this odd side effect it doesn't make clear whether the patient in question was carrying such documentation or even if it was this incident that lead to the recommendation. As someone who has who has made a habit of reading news copy with a jaundiced eye, especially Reuters, one gets the impression this omission and the misleading way the article was written was deliberate.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    3. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you are probably right. Not enough FUD in there to qualify for fox news

    4. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by x_IamSpartacus_x · · Score: 1

      They are Tyrannosauruses and we must listen to their phone calls!

    5. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by Morphine007 · · Score: 1
      Seriously!! I mean, how can anyone sleep at night knowing that one of their neighbours might possibly have no fingerprints and be nothing but a terrorist waiting to happen!?!?!?!

      Quick, before it's too late, round up all your neighbours and fingerprint them. If you find any without discernible fingerprints, SHOOT THEM RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT!! After all, you can never be too safe!

      As an FYI, drugs aren't required to think that detaining a 62 year old for over 4 hours is retarded; a sense of perspective will accomplish the same thing.

      How long does it take to question a man to determine whether or not he has a decent story, and to then determine whether or not he has any biological, nuclear, chemical weapons or explosives?

    6. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by jmorris42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > Seriously!! I mean, how can anyone sleep at night knowing that one of their neighbours might possibly have no
      > fingerprints and be nothing but a terrorist waiting to happen!?!?!?!

      Of course! I had forgotten that in bizarro/Kostard world the only thing we watch for at borders is terrorists (who are a figment of Bushitler's mind). We all know that ordinary criminals and assorted riffraff never try to enter the country. You know, people with a warrant out for their arrest who might think removing their fingerprints might allow their fake/stolen ID to get em past the less than geniuses the government hires as guards.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    7. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      Your rhetoric is pretty terrible. You're trying to tell me that an interpol or fbi search on a name takes 4 hours to return a picture (or not), and that searching the man's belongings for contraband/weaponry takes another 4 hours of concurrent activity? Seriously?

      It doesn't take very long to confirm someone's identity (provided they're not giving you a false one) regardless of fingerprints, and lists containing known terrorists are fairly widespread. The story is about stupidity and ineptitude in the name of security.

    8. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by pwfffff · · Score: 1

      There's at least one other, more common, case, where someone who's lost the use of their hands no longer touches things enough to rub off the dead skin which erodes away to leave the ridges and grooves of your fingerprints.

      I saw it on TV, it's totally true.

      Also, I would have guessed you were the one frying your brains out via bong, judging from the severe paranoia you seem to suffer from ('OMG NO FINGERPRINTS HE MUST BE UP TO NO GOOD CAUSE THE BAD GUYS IN MOVIES USED ACID ON THEIR FINGERS TO BE SNEAKY OMG').

    9. Re:Headline on Fox News tonight: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Headline on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight:

      Airport detention Bush's fault. Border officials worse than terrorists.

  10. some people just don't have fingerprints by alphaFlight · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My wife had to get a special exemption to sit for the bar exam because the state police couldn't take her fingerprints, which were necessary for conducting the required criminal background check. She has no idea why her fingerprints are virtually nonexistent.

    --
    -= alphaFlight =-
    1. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by joyfeather · · Score: 2, Informative

      I knew an guy who had worked with air conditioners for years- he couldn't be fingerprinted either, and that was with the old style ink method. The chemicals he worked with burned off the surface of the skin on his fingers.

    2. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      My wife worked at a biotech company. She had to wash her hands constantly for her job, and her fingerprints just washed off eventually.... But their security system to gain access to the building involved a fingerprint scanner and PIN.

      She had to get a security exception to get into the building every single day.

    3. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Funny

      She secretly works for the MIB. They remove your fingerprints when they join. Every time you discover this, however, she gets you with her little memory-zapper-thingy.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by nasor · · Score: 1

      So did they subject your wife to some sort of extraordinary, non-fingerprint-related background check? Or do they just shrug and exempt people from the requirement if the person doesn't have fingerprints?

    5. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by fbartho · · Score: 1

      Couldn't she get a dongle with an artificial fingerprint? I mean it's less secure, sure, but then what's to stop anyone from chopping off a finger to get in?

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    6. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. I had my fingerprints removed so that I could become a terrorist...wait, there's a knock at the door, I'll be right

    7. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 0, Redundant
    8. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I wash my hands constantly (from my irrational distaste for having unclean hands, not for any job requirement) on the measure of about 30-40 times a day every day, and my fingerprints are still intact. Maybe she washes her hands even more than that, but I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

    9. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by sponga · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is a huge section of the population that have worn down fingerprints.

      Nurses! You see anybody who has to constantly wash their hands in the medical field will have no prints after awhile, this is notorious amongst nurses/surgeons/mechanics/laborers.

    10. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, based on your anecdotal sample size of one, clearly I'm making this up.

      She has a mild case of Eczema, which is commonly aggrivated by excessive washing. It causes cracking peeling, swelling and scarring. Her thumb prints have *not* grown back.

    11. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I wash my hands constantly (from my irrational distaste for having unclean hands, not for any job requirement) on the measure of about 30-40 times a day every day, and my fingerprints are still intact. Maybe she washes her hands even more than that, but I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

      Lava Soap. The power of pumice.

    12. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So it wasn't just because she washed her hands all of the time. It was due to a medical condition. So we were both half right and half wrong (or in your case, you just left out important info).

    13. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that if you washed your hands with hot magma, losing your fingerprints would be the least of your concern.

    14. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you're joking. If not, I was serious:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lava_(soap)
      http://www.google.com/search?q=lava+soap

    15. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe, just maybe, she isn't using normal soap. Keep in mind, biotech firm. They tend to use rather nastier cleaning chemicals to be sure that all of the tools (including people's hands) don't carry things between samples. Can't very well stick a lab tech's hands in an autoclave.

    16. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shame shame shame.

      "...she gets you with her little flashy thingy."

      fixed.

    17. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is (Score:4, Informative). I love slashdot 3

    18. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Why do they remove their fingerprints when YOU join? Are you really THAT important?

      You're not making any sense, mate!

    19. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Velex · · Score: 0, Redundant

      <CARRIER LOST>

      You're doing it wr*^%$#NO CARRIER

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    20. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then she should stop complaining when he forgets their anniversary. It's her fault for zapping his memory so often.

    21. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Your wife has a history of violence.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    22. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The fact that your comment got modded informative is proof that your sig is correct.

      --
      Qxe4
    23. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, the flashing is reserved for the Internet, where all things female and flashing are stored!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    24. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some people have faint ridges. I had to give six sets of fingerprints when I got a job at a bank and when i once wanted to be a police officer i spent 30 minutes with a detective and a high tech fingerprinting machine before he could get a good print.

    25. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm assuming you're joking.

      We have a winner!!!

    26. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      <CARRIER LOST>

      You're doing it wr*^%$#NO CARRIER

      It's the government we talking about here. They don't even shut down your service efficiently.

    27. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Totally offtopic, but I have to share the following link with you. It relates to a very misinformed post you made about a month ago.

      http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

    28. Re:some people just don't have fingerprints by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      Please see the US Treasury Debt application, and show me the last time a Fiscal Year ended with a lower national debt than the previous Fiscal Year. HINT: Eisenhower was President...

      .
      I know that President Clinton loves to crow about budget surpluses, but given that the US national debt increased EVERY year, the surpluses were figments of his imagination. If there was a surplus, the national debt should have gone down, rather than gone up.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  11. Oh, piff by goldaryn · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is all just minutiae, people!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutiae

    1. Re:Oh, piff by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      +1, entirely apropos geek humor

      A+, would lol again

  12. Obviously by TibbonZero · · Score: 5, Funny

    We must ban anti-cancer drugs. The terrorists might use them. Terrorists could hurt children. Think of the children!

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:Obviously by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Even though you were just being sarcastic, I think the threat is non-existent. Judging from the info, it takes quite a while for the drug to have this sort of affect. It would be simpler to just burn the tips of the fingers to the point that the scar tissue obscured the fingerprints. A lot cheaper at that.

    2. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few years ago I would have laughed. In a future near you it might just happen.

    3. Re:Obviously by Jorgandar · · Score: 1

      why cant we just ban cancer?

  13. Maybe they'll use the cancer drug on Flourosapien by davidsyes · · Score: 1
    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  14. 4 hours? by anonieuweling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As if the prints would return this quick?
    How stupid can you be if such a specific case takes 4 hours?
    DHS senior personnel thinks that they NEED fingerprints to let someone enter? [fascist state proof #1]
    DHS is unsure if they can send him back because there are no prints.
    [cluelessness proof #1] Etc.
    Of course the man didn't tell them he was taking medicine etc.

    1. Re:4 hours? by Chabo · · Score: 1

      As if the prints would return this quick?

      I don't know, man. On CSI they always have a match within about 12 seconds!

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    2. Re:4 hours? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps there isn't a drive-thru for thorough background checks. They'd call it McScreenalds

    3. Re:4 hours? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      It would go a lot faster if they didn't have to refresh the display between each compare...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:4 hours? by Chabo · · Score: 1

      Well, since they can search the whole database in 30 seconds, maybe they only display one out of every 200 or so possibles?

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  15. Well by jav1231 · · Score: 0

    What choice do they have? It could take 4hrs to verify someone is on such a drug. It ended well so this is hardly a controversy.

    1. Re:Well by Minwee · · Score: 1

      What choice do they have?

      What part of flying on an airplane requires that you have fingerprints?

    2. Re:Well by legirons · · Score: 3, Informative

      What choice do they have? It could take 4hrs to verify someone is on such a drug. It ended well so this is hardly a controversy.

      How many flights have you arrived for where a 4-hour delay wouldn't have caused huge problems for you?

      Most airlines I know, you lose your flight if you don't get through security on time, and if you can't pay for a much more expensive ticket on the next flight then you might lose your entire holiday

    3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It ended well so this is hardly a controversy.

      Jav, Why don't you contract cancer and then travel overseas to visit relatives perhaps one last time and then spend 4 hours out of your precious few at the airport while some nitwit scrutinizes you to no end?!? Then come back here and tell us "it ended well."

    4. Re:Well by shabble · · Score: 1

      What choice do they have?

      What part of flying on an airplane requires that you have fingerprints?

      I dunno. In the past 7 years, I've flown to around 14 different countries from South America, Africa to the Middle and Far East (clearly not at the same time,) and not once have I ever had my fingerprints taken as part of the process.

    5. Re:Well by adamchou · · Score: 1

      I've flown to around 14 different countries from South America, Africa to the Middle and Far East

      You don't hear about terrorists wanting to declare Jihad on any of those countries do you?

    6. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the US fingerprints visa applicants (not citizens, which is why I'm not sure).

    7. Re:Well by adamchou · · Score: 1

      What part of flying on an airplane requires that you have fingerprints?

      Flying is a privilege, not a right. If finger printing is necessary to maintain the safety of its passengers and the country that the people are flying into, then it should be required.

    8. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even if it is the law in the US for this to happen at airports, how can that apply to non citizens? Do you have to sign some sort of EULA when you get on the plane that you will obey US law? Or when you get off perhaps?

    9. Re:Well by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Um, yes, you do. Against China in particular, as well as Thailand, and (ahem) Israel. There was a bomb detonated in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds back in 1995. I traveled to Argentina the following year: no fingerprints.

      I was in London 2 weeks after the tube bombs, as well. No finger prints.

      Clearly, other countries aren't as wussy as the US is.

    10. Re:Well by adamchou · · Score: 0, Troll

      right, so they don't require fingerprinting. then again, lets look at how many bombings occur in the countries that don't require them and the number of bombings that happen here. sometimes, people confuse intelligent safety protocols with being wussy. usually, we call them idiots.

    11. Re:Well by adamchou · · Score: 1

      oh yea, btw, the buenos aires bombing happened in 1995 and it was against the israeli embassy, not the argentinian sovereignty.

    12. Re:Well by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Most airlines I know, you lose your flight if you don't get through security on time, and if you can't pay for a much more expensive ticket on the next flight then you might lose your entire holiday

      I've always had a ticket re-issued for the next available flight for free because of a delay after travel started. That is, if I took off on one ticket, all other legs were treated as an extension of a ticket that I was on time getting on, and delays are covered under that ticket I was demonstrably on-time for. But then, your experience may differ. When is the last time you personally missed a connection for any reason and were not on the next available flight for no extra charge?

    13. Re:Well by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What part of flying on an airplane requires that you have fingerprints?

      Nothing. It's getting in the foreign country after you land that's the issue.

    14. Re:Well by shabble · · Score: 1

      I've flown to around 14 different countries from South America, Africa to the Middle and Far East

      You don't hear about terrorists wanting to declare Jihad on any of those countries do you?

      Ignoring the fact that you seem to think that the 4 places I named are the only places I implied I'd been to, um, yes. In fact not only have 'terrorists' wanted to declare Jihad on them, they already have.

      All from the same site because it appears to be useful source of such stuff, and thus probably biased in your eyes anyway:

      http://www.historyofjihad.org/canada.html
      http://www.historyofjihad.org/britain.html
      http://www.historyofjihad.org/germany.html
      http://www.historyofjihad.org/malaysia.html
      http://www.historyofjihad.org/australia.html

      Which is not to imply that every country I've been to has had Jihad declared against it.

  16. The Penguin (not the Linux kind) tried this by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Funny

    In an episode of the original Adam West "Batman" series, the caped crusader was performing a high-tech fingerprint scan on all the citizens leaving some sort of event. Along comes a long-nosed fellow -- obviously The Penguin, since his disguise was about as effective as Superman's "Clark Kent" cover. Batman attempts the fingerprint scan, but the man has no fingerprints.

    "Holy Nonsequitur, Batman!" the intrepid Robin exclaims, "it's plastic!"

    "Yes, I believe that's what the surgeon used," replies the ersatz innocent civilian.

    Batman lets him go, but confides to Robin that he knows it's the Penguin -- but now that the dastardly enemy thinks he's slipped the trap, he will now lead them to the bad guys' secret lair.

    Obviously, the TSA should have done the same with this guy. Then, they could have found the entire Al Qaida leadership, probably meeting in a rakishly tilted room, behind the one-way mirror in a seedy magic shop.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:The Penguin (not the Linux kind) tried this by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Funny, but you are assuming that his goal isn't to blow up the airport he's arrived in. Even though he's already in the airport, he's in a fairly isolated part of the airport at that point, and in custody where he can be controlled. Release him into the general airport area, and you have lost your control.

    2. Re:The Penguin (not the Linux kind) tried this by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      That's from the Batman movie. The fingerprints thing was a ploy by the Penguin to get himself taken into the Batcave secretly carrying his dehydrated thugs, whom he accidentally reconstitutes with heavy water due to his umbrella handle snagging on the water fountain lever, moving it from "light" to "heavy." As a result, the thugs turn back to dust at the slightest impact, foiling the Penguin's infiltration.

    3. Re:The Penguin (not the Linux kind) tried this by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1

      Wow, you brought back a whole 'nother round of memories. The whole "dehydrated people" thing. The great final scene, where Batman has meticulously re-separated the combined dusty remains of the United Nations leaders, rehydrated them in their seats, and the (re-)assembled delegates continue arguing as though they had never been turned into powder by the forces of evil.

      Time to hit the Netflix queue.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  17. 4 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's 4 hours of his life he will never get back, and that's saying something for a cancer patient.

  18. This is appalling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having just lost my father to pancreatic cancer, and seeing him suffer so much from the chemo and other drugs he was taking, I can't believe that something like this would happen in an airport. It's hard enough having to deal with the cancer and the side effects of the treatement without having getting held at an airport because of your side effects! Airports might want to start treating their customers like HUMAN beings.

  19. Cancer Drugs? Not for him! by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    He should have said that the drugs were for his Goat!

  20. Where does that image come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck, where does the fingerprint image come from? I am pretty sure it was an image from the results section of my master dissertation!! I was not aware that somebody beyond me read it, much less one of the images would end in Slashdot!!

  21. Bunch of idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fingerprint is an image of the fingers (duh!).

    If the authorities don't like this guy's fingers and the images of his fingers, the problem is with the authorities.

    The real problem is that a person's fingerprints is not a definitive unique permanent identifier, even though most people treat them that way.

  22. Cancer Patient might be an alien... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of an old episode of Battlestar Galactica 1980 where the young heroes got busted by the sheriff and accused of filing away their fingerprints to avoid identification. The flying motorcycles were cool.

    1. Re:Cancer Patient might be an alien... by vastabo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. No, they weren't.

    2. Re:Cancer Patient might be an alien... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Just when you think you've got that atrocity erased from your mind...

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Cancer Patient might be an alien... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Just when you think you've got that atrocity erased from your mind...

      ... they reboot the series.

    4. Re:Cancer Patient might be an alien... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      They rebooted Galactica 1980? Oh please tell me you're joking.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  23. Been there, done that... by Calibax · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2005, and after surgery I did the chemotherapy thing. One of my drugs was Xeloda, which is the marketing name for capecitabine, the drug this guy is taking.

    The problem mentioned in TFA is Hand-Foot Syndrome (HFS) or palmer-palmer erythrodysesthesia. Capecitabine causes redness, swelling, a rash, and burning pain in the hands and feet - and sometimes elsewhere such as joints and genitals. In bad cases the skin peels and you get blisters, ulcers and sores in the affected areas. This is because some of the drug leaks out of the capillaries and damages the surrounding tissues, and you have a lot of capillaries close to the surface in the hands and feet.

    There are drugs (Vitamin B6, corticosteroids, dimethyl sulfoxide) that can help sometimes - but they didn't for me. Walking became extremely painful, and my hands were constantly hot and painful, although I didn't lose my fingerprints as far as I know. Everything returned to normal some months after chemotherapy completed.

    I really sympathize with this guy. Dealing with immigration headaches while having bad hand-foot syndrome would have been a total hassle for me. Even standing up for a few minutes was torture.

    1. Re:Been there, done that... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear that you had health issues :( I hope you are okay now.

    2. Re:Been there, done that... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Glad you are still around, and good of you to chime in. It's very important to know that this is not just one standalone case. Out of second hand experience, I know that this kind of trouble is the last thing you need when traveling. My parents did quite a lot of traveling when they were sick with cancer even though it was sometimes pretty hard. In their (and my) opinion, it's better to take a chance and make your life worthwhile.

      That said, there's no need to make that (even) harder than it should be. Countries with these kind of restrictions or bad health care (or both) are easy to remove from the list of holiday destinations, unless - as with this case - there are additional reasons for visiting that country.

    3. Re:Been there, done that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think he might get a card to show the TSA when he flies. My Grandma has one for her hip replacement surgery.

  24. Invasive procedure by StratumZer0 · · Score: 1

    When did immigration started fingerprinting visitors in to the US? This person was "visiting relatives" and wouldn't need a green card or work visa, why were they fingerprinting him? Oh, yeah! because they can (invade our privacy).

    1. Re:Invasive procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      When did immigration started fingerprinting visitors in to the US? This person was "visiting relatives" and wouldn't need a green card or work visa, why were they fingerprinting him? Oh, yeah! because they can (invade our privacy).

      They started fingerprinting a few years back. EVERYONE is now fingerprinted at the US border, visa or no visa, with a few exceptions:

      - US citizens aren't fingerprinted
      - Canadian citizens aren't fingerprinted
      - I don't know about diplomats, presumably not

      Everyone else gets fingerprinted. Don't like it? Then don't visit the USA.

      Incidentally, travel & tourism to the US has gone down recently. Could be the recession...

  25. Do they fingerprint everyone?! by hey · · Score: 1

    ... entering the country. What nonsense!

    1. Re:Do they fingerprint everyone?! by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fingerprint and photograph, yes -- with a few exceptions. The big one is that (most) Canadian citizens are exempt. As well, individuals younger than 14 or older than 79 can skip the ten card and mugshot.

      You get the invasion of privacy even if you're just passing through a U.S. airport to make a connection to another country.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Do they fingerprint everyone?! by Voice+of+satan · · Score: 1
      • Didn't know they asked fingerprint for everyone. Thought there were special agreements for tourists coming by airplane between most countries. Who the f*ck would give away biometric data (an go trough the hassle of getting them) to do a bloody "pleasure" trip !?
      • When i think i wanted to visit the yellowstone park, great canyon and the likes. Hell, i even considered working there after finishing my engineering physics studies. How naive i was. *Bars USA from list of countries to visit and sighs*
      • By the way, South Americans residing in Europe avoid going trough USA to visit family. My mother does that. Instead of 900 she paid 1700 to go to Chile without crossing any USA border. There are special tickets for that. At the travel agency in Brussels, the clerk said that "all" South American do that.
    3. Re:Do they fingerprint everyone?! by hey · · Score: 1

      So the insane security probably costs the US lots of money because of the fewer passengers who come thru.

  26. This is utterly non-news! by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From a medical and oncological perspective, this is very interesting stuff.

    From a DHS/security/evil overlord angle, it's absolutely nothing at all.

    The guy was screened routinely. He failed the screening for an extraordinary reason, and was kept for four measly hours, until they could parse and process the exception.

    That's it. They didn't strip-search him, they didn't tase him, they didn't abuse him or violate his rights. They came across an exception, dealt with it, and moved on.

    Or would you rather spend all day making up SHOCKING headlines for articles like, "Police do their job. Bring in suspect for questioning, and then release him after innocence proven."

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:This is utterly non-news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they didn't abuse him or violate his rights.

      They detained him without cause. He had done nothing wrong. He was held because they couldn't deal with him efficiently.

      They [airport security] have a duty to process travelers efficiently. If their methods cannot do that, then there is an argument to be made that they were negligent in their duty. If there was a loss of money involved, he would probably have grounds for a lawsuit.

    2. Re:This is utterly non-news! by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The guy was screened routinely. "

      THAT'S the problem.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:This is utterly non-news! by againjj · · Score: 1

      they didn't abuse him or violate his rights.

      They detained him without cause. He had done nothing wrong.

      These are not necessarily coextensive. Just because you have done nothing wrong does not mean that any detainment is without cause. If I have a bloody knife and am standing next to a guy that has just been murdered, then there is cause to detain me, even if I have done nothing wrong. One method that some criminals use to avoid detection is the removal of fingerprints. To lack fingerprints could be considered cause.

      Having said that, I wish to note that I am not commenting on whether what happened was appropriate or not, as I do not feel that there was enough information given in TFA.

    4. Re:This is utterly non-news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bring in suspect for questioning, and then release him after innocence proven."

      In the United States, the burden of proof is on finding guilt.

    5. Re:This is utterly non-news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then release him after innocence proven."

      Except this is the United States, and it is one's guilt that must be proven. As long as the bumbling masses do not understand the difference, the decline of our society will continue.

    6. Re:This is utterly non-news! by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's more like the police detaining you because you have a clean knife in your kitchen, since many murderers clean the murder weapon. Or for that matter you have no knife, since most murderers would dispose of it.

      With no fingerprints this guy will be harassed for the rest of his life, precisely because there is no evidence that can be used against him. Since any criminal would want to blend in, having no fingerprints is in fact "cause" to suspect that he is very innocent.

    7. Re:This is utterly non-news! by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      OP is a liberal, though.

    8. Re:This is utterly non-news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you shouldn't have to prove your innocence?

      (Just kidding, I know that last bit was simply a slip of the fingers/toungue, and I agree with your analysis - the situation was handled fine.)

    9. Re:This is utterly non-news! by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Or would you rather spend all day making up SHOCKING headlines for articles like, "Police do their job. Bring in suspect for questioning, and then release him after innocence proven."

      Actually, that would be shocking. The burden of proof is not on the suspect, but on the accusers. You don't get to prove your innocence, the law has to prove your guilt. A system of innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

    10. Re:This is utterly non-news! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      No, I'm afraid you've got it wrong.

      He has something exceedingly unusual, and the most common cause for it is evidence avoidance. Talking to him for a few hours and doing some background checking is a standard way of assuring that he has an exceedingly uncommon (and innocent) cause for his exceedingly unusual condition.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    11. Re:This is utterly non-news! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      OK, change one word there. s/proven/determined/

      In that theoretical headline, the police have a suspect, investigate appropriately, and find no reason to keep the person further.

      Besides, the burden of proof lies on the suspect in a number of cases in the US, at least. Drug charges are explicitly guilty until innocent. Much of the homeland security nonsense is the same, at least implicitly.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  27. Eradication of fingerprints? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Usually, you don't want to take anticancer drugs unless you have cancer.

    If you want to get rid of your fingerprints, there's always pineapple juice. Much less poisonous.

  28. My sister was held back too! by KreAture · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My sister has Nethertons Syndrome. It's relevant implication for this case is that her skin is replaced faster than normal. This causes her to have weak if any fingerprints.

    When visiting Florida for christmas last year my entire family was held back for about half an hour. Only after the "security person" had consulted his superior, and that superior had consulted yet another superior, were this 16 year old obvious thread to national security allowed to pass into America. They also tried to wipe her fingertips with alcohol. Very pleasant on what you can compare to a first to second degree burn.

  29. The *REAL* scariest words in the English language by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 0

    Bend over Biotch.
    Customs officials may not verbally say it, but their attitude screams it.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  30. 4 hours!? by kungfugleek · · Score: 1
    He must have been in the fast lane!

    Please try the buffet, yadda yadda yadda...

    1. Re:4 hours!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I have never seen a queue less than three hours in the USA and that was before 11/09

  31. Not just anti-cancer drugs by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    My skin routinely gets dry and flaky in the winter and during those times my fingerprints become unreadable. This confused the poor lady at the Driver's license office for a bit but she had me try different fingers until we found one that worked. I'm pretty sure this is not the correct process for that...

    You would be amazed by how much grip those little ridges provide -- when my hands are like that I drop things a lot more and have to be careful when carrying glasses of water and stuff like that. I'd say the mutant power of someone with that condition is to NOT stick to things.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  32. Sense of touch by AlpineR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wrote about this in my cancer blog a few months back:

    I lost some feeling in my hands and feet due to the various chemotherapy drugs I've taken over the past five years. I also lost my fingerprints thanks to Xeloda, which irritates the palms and soles in a reaction called hand-foot syndrome.

    When I went to Disney World in 2007 I found that the entry gates use fingerprint scanners to ensure that the person using an electronic ticket is the same one who registered it. The scanner choked when I tried to register and an attendant had to override it. I bet that enough of the population has similar issues that it's in their training manual. I suppose it also means that people like me are a headache for anyone else trying to use fingerprints for identification.

    Some of the numbness is nerve damage, particularly from the platinum-based drugs. The nerves do slowly heal, so I am getting some feeling back. In fact, now that I've been off of systemic chemo for four months I have enough feeling to realize that I lost more than I appreciated. Except for a period after a massive dose in 2005, the numbness hasn't been enough to interfere with tasks like holding a pen or buttoning a shirt. It's just been a dullness of sensation.

    Today I learned that there's another explanation. According to research published in Science, fingerprints enhance the sense of touch. The ridges vibrate as they encounter bumps on a surface and transmit stronger signals to the nerve endings. So part of my numbness to texture is not just the nerve damage but the lack of fingerprints. I wonder if they, too, will regrow over time.

    1. Re:Sense of touch by Calibax · · Score: 1

      I'd guess you were taking Oxaliplatin and this caused the nerve problems - about 90% of people who take this drug lose some feeling in their hands and feet. 80% of those that do return to normal within 2 years of stopping the drug.

      Sadly, I'm in the 20% who do not get all the sensation back in their fingers. No more touch typing for me... :(

  33. My mom took something like this by BigGar' · · Score: 1

    Capecitbine after a few passes through the liver becomes 5-Fluorouracil or 5-FU, which is the drug she took.
    It played hell on her hands & feet and for several years she had no prints on her hands or feet.
    It really sucks your hands & feet are very raw/chapped all the time, just moving them could cause bleeding cracks to form; its just miserable.

    --


    Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
  34. Yeah, securiy theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I get the feeling that we are going to see more and more of this security theatre crap. From what I understand there is no independent scientific evidence that fingerprints are a unique identifying feature, no mater how much the government wishes it was. I recall several attempts by law enforcement to create "infailable methods" (the only one I can remember at the moment is "gait ID", something to do with how people walk) to identify people but eventually all of them were proven to be nothing more than an inpetus for convicting/harassing people on little to no evidence. Even the DNA methods used by the FBI have been proven to be imperfect, being vastly less accurate than the FBI claimed. Law enforcement/government/security needs to get over the falacy that there is some magical perfect ID method for finding "the bad people". (forgive my spelling errors, some moron removed OO from the PC)

  35. So What.... by gubers33 · · Score: 1

    the government does realize that alcohol does something of the same thing to your fingerprints. Your fingerprints become less pronounced and thus appear different when you are intoxicated.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  36. Gasp! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    But it could have been weaponized cancer! Ha! Didn't think of that one, did you!?

  37. The non-story by westlake · · Score: 1

    The incident happened in December 2008.

    The loss of fingerprints is not described in the packaging of the drug...It is uncertain when the onset of fingerprint loss will take place in susceptible patients.

    It's a side effect of long term use. It isn't well documented. It doesn't always happen. It isn't well-understood.

    ---and if you are on this drug your long term survival prospects aren't particularly good. Capecitabine

    The letter in the Annuals of Oncology appeared online today. Fingerprints May Vanish With Cancer Drug

  38. America: A Dialogue by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Based on a true story and submitted for your critical evaluation, dear reader, I present "America: A Dialogue".

    Alice: I can't believe people want to bring the 9/11 terrorists into the US.

    Bob: Well, it's the right thing to do. We need to stop torturing them and give them fair trials.

    Alice: But not here. They're too dangerous to bring into the country.

    Bob:: If our prisons can hold Timothy McVeigh, they can hold anyone. And they're being tortured over there.

    Alice: McVeigh is one thing, but if we hold Al Qaeda terrorists, their supporters will come down through Canada and bail them out of Fort Leavenworth. I think they're just too dangerous to keep here, and an island is much more secure anyway.

    Bob: But our soldiers are behaving like monsters and torturing these people.

    Alice: They deserve it anyway. They attacked us on 9/11. And the real monsters are on top*. Don't criticize our troops who are just trying to do their job. It must hard dealing with those people.

    Bob: We don't know they've done anything. They've never been tried. And our troops are responsible for what they do. Didn't we decide that at Nuremberg?

    Alice: We know they attacked us. These things happen during war. They happen all the time. My friend's father told me of some nasty stuff that happened in Korea. This is no big deal.

    Bob: [dramatic facepalm, exit stage left]

    [Curtain drops, Alice appears from behind it]

    Alice: I'm so glad we elected someone who can rehabilitate our image in the world.

    [House lights]

    * Note the slight improvement over the past few years

    1. Re:America: A Dialogue by grantek · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot:
      Eve: Boys, ready a unit for dispatch...

  39. Re:just doing their job: So Was Adolph Eichmann by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Was Adolph Eichmann, and he got hanged. Perhaps we should start hanging the idiots who work for TSA and customs/immigration.

  40. Confused... by Chuq · · Score: 1

    At least at first, this showed up in my RSS reader as "Cancer Patient Held At Airport For Missing Finger..."

    --
    - Chuq
  41. safety first, wear gloves, face shield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously people, its not hard -- you don't want fines from OSHA

  42. Put these on in the mean time... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Sir, please put these fake gloves containing fake fingerprint, don't worry they are still unique, this way should you rob a bank or something, we will be able to trace you no matter where you go....oh and btw, if you do rob a bank, don't put gloves on top of these gloves please, it makes our jobs harder.

    thank you , come again

        O_O

  43. What are they doing with all of these fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they just cross referencing them and then dumping them?
    Or are they building a database?
    Seems like if they are building a database it would get pretty inefficient quickly considering the accuracy of fingerprints;
    if they are adding them to an existing database seems like it would increase dilution.

  44. How 'bout you just my finger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tapioca!

  45. Perfectly understandable by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    All I'm saying is, if somebody had stolen *my* fingerprints, I'd want them to be held at an airport, cancer patient or no.