Homeland Security To Scan Citizens Exiting US

An anonymous reader writes "The US Department of Homeland Security is set to kickstart a controversial new pilot to scan the fingerprints of travellers departing the United States. From June, US Customs and Border Patrol will take a fingerprint scan of travellers exiting the United States from Detroit, while the US Transport Security Administration will take fingerprint scans of international travellers exiting the United States from Atlanta. The controversial plan to scan outgoing passengers — including US citizens — was allegedly hatched under the Bush Administration. An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants."

Comments

Idiocy

[vux984]

"An official has said it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants"

Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back. What is the point of catching someone you don't want in the country when they are leaving it??

Re:Idiocy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Probably because we don't actually seem to care much.

On the other hand, the fact that a fair few Americans are more xenophobic than they are freedom-loving presents a golden opportunity...

Re:Idiocy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

And so is the continual expansion of State power, particularly at the federal level, in the name of "security". I'd argue that a lot of people are letting their fear of immigrants drive them right into that.

Re:Idiocy

[Stuart Gibson]

I'm more interested in what they're going to do if I refuse? Throw me out of the country?

Re:Idiocy

[Jurily]

Why not just let them leave? And bar them when they try to come back.

Apparently, they already failed at that once. I don't understand this move, but once again it's clear that the US borders are not a privacy dream. Next up: state borders and continental air travel?

I'm so glad I'm not American.

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

It's not a matter of xenophobia. For most people anyway. Illegal immigration is a very real social and economic problem.

I'd like to second this. I'm not xenophobic -- I support allowing a large number of legal immigrants into the country each year under fairly generous terms. I oppose all forms of ethnic quotas and other restrictive immigration policies. I support giving legal immigrants nearly full access to the benefits of citizenship as soon as they arrive and additional services (if they want) to help them in adjusting to a different country. Hopefully, this is enough to convince people that I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, anti-immigrant.

On the other hand, I am a firm believer in the need to enforce the law with regards to illegal immigrants -- deport them and bar them from reentry. These positions aren't contradictory and, in fact, I see them as complementary -- by increasing legal immigration and throwing out all the illegal immigrants, we will be rewarding those honest people that follow the rules instead of those that decide that they have the right to break the law to get what they want. Those are the kind of people that we ought to be allowing to immigrate. The incentives in our current system are perversely the opposite of this -- it punishes those that want to follow the rules with onerous waits and arbitrary terms while rewarding those that skip in line with amnesty and "safe haven". It's ludicrous, and I blame both the GOP for stymieing legal immigration and the Dems for stymieing systematic attempts to identify and deport illegals and punish unscrupulous employers (only the really negligent, of course -- not every contractor that accepts a forged SSN deserves to get canned, but the ones that intentionally look the other way certainly do).

Such a partisan football is made out of what I thought was just common sense -- it's depressing really. I can't understand it -- I just can't. It's some sort of collective insanity we've entered in this country.

Re:Idiocy

[WindBourne]

First, we are still better than most nations, but we are certainly heading towards more of a police state similar what other nations have.

As to illegals, I have a sister-in-law who was once illegal. She was able to come and go pretty much at will, even though she was illegal. fake IDs (including passports) made all that TRIVIAL.

Re:Idiocy

[vux984]

So, what nation do you live in that allows ppl, including criminals, to come and go freely?

When the primary punishment for being an "illegal alien" is deportation, what exactly are you going to do when you catch them trying to leave? Make them leave?

Re:Idiocy

[cyberprophet]

The people who allegedly did the 9-11 attacks had brown skin and are rather indistinguishable from the brown-skinned people south of the U.S border.

Are you really suggesting that you can't tell the difference between someone from Central America and someone from the Middle East?

Re:Idiocy

[gringofrijolero]

No, they're going to throw you into a room, until after your plane leaves. Then you can go buy another ticket and refuse again...

Re:Idiocy

[Wrath0fb0b]

How about the contractors who accept forged SSNs and then proceed to duly withhold and file all payroll related taxes?

Don't care. They knowingly accepted a forged SSN and should be punished for violating a fairly simple and straightforward law. Yes, it's nice that they paid taxes, but my main concern with illegal immigration is not taxes -- it's basic fairness.

It is unfair to the legal immigrants who did things according to the rules to allow those that skipped the lines to have the same benefits.

Re:Idiocy

[vux984]

Also, how can this be about illegal immigrants if they are going to scan US citizens???

Precisely. My post was that this was an absurd rationalization to pander support. He might as well have claimed it would stop child porn too.

Re:Idiocy

[phyrz]

And he's modded insightful lol. If you can't tell the difference between a Mexican and an Afghani you are lacking in insight, to be sure.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that you are trying to be fescisious

The word you were looking for there is "facetious", Sparky, not "fescisious".

Does your Dad know you're posting from his Slashdot account?

Re:Idiocy

[Grishnakh]

You're kidding, right? While there's certainly individuals in both groups who wouldn't be easily mistaken for being part of the other group, there are definitely individuals in each group whose appearance is more ambiguous.

Besides, there's a lot of Mexicans who look to me just like any northern-European-descended American. Not all Mexicans are directly descended from native Americans, you know. A lot are mostly Spanish, and some are even German. Watch some Spanish-language soap operas on your local spanish-language channel some time: a lot of the people on there don't look much different from Americans, and have rather pale skin.

Lots of people could be easily made to pass as another ethnic group just by changing their clothes and haircut. That's exactly what the Al Queda hijackers did: they cut their hair and shaved their beards. Many middle-easterners don't look that different from many Americans except for their beards. In addition, many Israelis look much like the Arabs who hate them.

Re:Idiocy

[mdwh2]

I'm sure they'll throw you out with the same hospitality that these thugs showed a Guardian journalist. But hey, they say they're not as bad as Iran!

Re:Idiocy

[rzekson]

Suppose you are a politician and the uneducated hard-core conservatives want the competition out; ideally, nobody would ever immigrate. There are two options: you can kick out people whom you can control (those who follow the law), or kick out people whom you can't control (those who enter illegally). The latter option is very difficult to implement: after all, if you can't control or even identify someone, you can't kick them out. So in order to demonstrate that you listen to your voters and do something to protect them from the evil "aliens", you generate all sorts of restrictions on people who follow the law.

Re:Idiocy

[0xdeadbeef]

Jesus, people, learn to use Google:

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

''Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,'' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

I might be less critical of such actions if it weren't for the fact that "security" isn't being improved or actually even being addressed.

The measure they have taken seem to be aimed more at people who are here in the U.S. legally (like citizens and all) than illegals.

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism. That's why it's called terrorism.

Most of us are equally justified in being afraid of the people in big government who spend billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars making life harder for everybody but the real terrorists.

That being the case ... what, exactly, are they afraid of?

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

I beg to differ: both mexicans and afghanis are very mixed.

A better question would be, what cultures are left on this planet that aren't racially mixed?

Re:Idiocy

[ushering05401]

No, they didn't accept knowingly forged SSNs. There is only one legal way to check an SSN prior to hire without violating equal opportunity laws - and that is by paying a background check company to run every potential hire (if you only run one race you are in for trouble according to the auditor I spoke with). And even that only works well if the SSN and name are mismatched.

Once the employee is hired and has been with you across the turn of a tax reporting period (quarterly notices are unusual, W-2 usually triggers contact).

The earliest correspondence related to mismatched SSN/Name pair on W-2 is around 6 months.

At this point the employer is contacted and must update the employee's information with the feds including hours worked/wages/etc.. and sign a form saying they have passed along an informational packet to the employee with an explanation that their SSN and their names are mismatched.

That is the last the employer ever hears about it because the employee usually moves along rather quickly.

In the event that the SSN and name match the employee will most likely not be reported as suspect by the feds.

And for those wondering where the self-check line has wandered off to... the results out of that service were abysmal with false positives all over.

Re:Idiocy

[moosesocks]

Cut me a break. 95% of the time, the folks fighting against illegal immigration are racist as hell, and automatically label any hispanic person as a probable 'illegal'

Is it an economic problem? Definitely. Is it as bad as people are claiming it to be? Probably not.

The solutions aren't great either. Immigration is something we're either going to have to put up with, or commit some pretty severe human rights violations to correct. (Also, are there many native-born Americans who are willing to pick fruit for $3/hour? Like it or not, we've had so many illegal immigrants for so long that the illegal labor force has become an integral part of the economy)

Re:Idiocy

[SydShamino]

The Japanese?

Re:Idiocy

[BigSlowTarget]

Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism? Some Americans are not cowards and are not willing to sacrifice the very living ideals that make the country special for the petty illusion of 'being safe.' 0.001% of the US population were killed when the towers fell. That is definitely a cause for seeking justice, might be a cause for preventative actions and could make some call for revenge, but fear? You have a better chance of dying in the bath.

Get real people. YOU ARE MORTAL SO YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. Make your life worth something instead of cowering from shadows. Prove that you're worth the soldiers' noble sacrifices and their exposure to real danger by shouldering just a little tiny bit of the burden. Fight fear and choose wisdom. Don't call for killing American freedom this way and don't support it when it happens.

Re:Idiocy

[dummondwhu]

Also, are there many native-born Americans who are willing to pick fruit for $3/hour?

That argument is a complete fallacy. Just considering situations of which I have first-hand knowledge, around here, many illegals make about the same as American workers for the fields in question (golf course maintenance, landscaping). Employers are happy to pay them under the table because they save all the associated payroll taxes: unemployment ins., worker's comp, etc. The workers may see slightly lower wages, but they're also not paying taxes in many cases.

Is this true in all cases? Of course not, but the idea that there is a mass army of workers working for $3/hr. is utter b.s. It's virtually impossible to live in the state of NJ at that wage, no matter how they pool their resources. And estimates say there are between 250,000 and 800,000 illegals in this state. They come here because it's worth it. They're not brought here on slave ships.

Re:Idiocy

[Mr. Slippery]

In addition, many Israelis look much like the Arabs who hate them.

And, of course, vice-versa.

Maybe that's the problem: ol' Jehovah couldn't tell which group of Semites he was promising the land to, they all look alike to him after all.

Re:Idiocy

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism?

Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree. YOur stat of 0.001% of the US population dying in a single day is quite a bit. I'm frightened of street crime. It's a rational fear.

You have a better chance of dying in the bath.

Not me. I don't take baths.

Don't call for killing American freedom this way and don't support it when it happens.

You seem to have misunderstood GP's post. He said that was also bad, and he thought this was on the wrong side (I also think this action is too extreme).

But it's as stupid to stand up and shout at the wind that no safety conditions are worth any amount of safety as it is to stand up and shout that we all must be enslaved to get safety increased a bit. All of life is a balancing act. Name one public policy where one extreme is always right?

Re:Idiocy

[genner]

That being the case ... what, exactly, are they afraid of?

Sane people voting them out of office.

Re:Idiocy

[ScrewMaster]

Really? Most of us are justifiably afraid of terrorism? Some Americans are not cowards and ...

Well, you rather missed the point. In an attempt to avoid a response like yours, I specifically said real terrorism. As opposed to the mere threat of terrorism which we're constantly subjected to by our government and news media, and the tremendous cost of dealing with that (ahem!) "threat." I simply want people to note that our government is generating more fear among the populace than any number of actual terrorists. Also, assuming that the threat is severely overblown, I want to know why they're doing it. Is it just the usual rationalization for a massive power-grab, or is it something else?

Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.

Re:Idiocy

[OrangeTide]

I'd argue that a lot of people are letting their fear of immigrants drive them right into that.

History will likely judge our allowance of illegal immigration and the creation of a de facto second class as the greatest travesty against human rights of late 20th and early 21st century. And will likely be compared to height of slavery in the US of the 19th century.

A government is wrong when a they decide that one group of people don't get the same protection from violent crime, the same basic services, or protection from exploitation. Why would anyone pay an illegal immigrant the state or federal minimum wage? While people certainly have a choice to live here, and are, in my opinion, moving here of their own free will, it is hell of an embarrassment for a major democratic free country to offer people second class citizenship. We have created a multi-generation(no exaggeration) second class sub-society by turning a blind eye to the problem instead of revising their immigration and guest worker system. One of the issues I have with uncontrolled immigration is that when violent criminals(organized drug cartels, rapists, thugs, etc) cross the border unchecked they slip into the communities of illegal immigrations and prey on them. For every 99 people that are peaceful reasonable folks that just want to support their family, there is a monster that follows them like a shadow. In a community where crime is horribly under reported, these monsters can terrorize a community and destroy lives. And the police can do little to stop them if they aren't really here.

People should either work here, after filling out the right paperwork, or not. Creating a new underground society because we're pussy footing around the politics and money related to illegal immigration is just shameful. If we can't make a profit in agriculture by paying people minimum wage to do the labor, then we need to explore more efficient means (more mechanization perhaps?) If paying minimum wage means cheap labor isn't available for building homes and tending to our lawns, we will have to adjust. We managed to build houses in the 40s to 60s by paying a relatively decent wage.

Most of the time I feel the illegal immigration debate is dominated by two opposite but equally irrational forces. Xenophobic hard liners that insist that amnesty for illegal immigrants will induce mass immigration who will "steal" American jobs and flood our healthcare system. And a knee-jerk political crowd that labels anyone who discusses the illegal immigration problem as a bigot and racist, and that we need to do more to support the inevitable influx of people, even if they are undocumented. I think I will label the Xenophobic crowd as redneck bigots, and the Politically Correct crowd as racist shills for corporate America.

Re:Idiocy

[misexistentialist]

If you really want security, you have to accept that the bad guys are indistinguishable

In other words security is impossible without monitoring/restricting/imprisoning everyone. Which is exactly what the governments of the world are starting to do. Usually such governments crumble, but this more gradual and impersonal method of totalitarianism might finally be the solution to creating the Great Dystopia. Technology has advanced to the point where the communication of dissidents (who will be called "domestic terrorists") can be detected and disrupted, and once organized action is impossible so is meaningful resistance.

Re:Idiocy

[Mr. Slippery]

Most of us are justifiably afraid of real terrorism.

Cancer and heart disease have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of ten million people in the past ten years. Over a million people died in accidents in the past decade; about 400,000 of those were killed in motor vehicle accidents.

In the past ten years, about 160,000 people were murdered.

About 30,000 drowned.

Only 2,974 were killed in acts of terrorism carried out by foreign nationals within the U.S.

If you're justifiably afraid of terrorism, you must be justifiably scared shitless of all this other, much more dangerous stuff.

And yet nobody gets all bent out of shape about how we have to suspend habeus corpus to protect ourselves from the dangers of swimming pools, cars, and Big Macs.

So long as we think fearing terrorists is justified, we will want Big Government to protect us. (Never mind that it's the brutal and stupid foreign policy of Big Government that motivates the terrorist's hate.)

Re:Idiocy

[Curunir_wolf]

No, they didn't accept knowingly forged SSNs. There is only one legal way to check an SSN prior to hire without violating equal opportunity laws - and that is by paying a background check company to run every potential hire (if you only run one race you are in for trouble according to the auditor I spoke with). And even that only works well if the SSN and name are mismatched.

Okay, I've lost my mod points, but I had to respond to this so I could correct this misinformation.

Apparently, too few people have heard of "e-verify". This is how employers are supposed to check whether or not a new hire is legitimately allowed to work in the US. It's free, quick, simple, and secure. It doesn't store or maintain any information about who checked what, it just gives the verification. Some SSNs used by illegal workers are shared around and they often have hundreds of names all under the same SSN.

There was an executive order that was supposed to require Federal contractors to use e-verify for all their new hires, but it's been suspended for now, and it looks like the whole system will go off-line at the end of September, because it has a sunset date and the current administration seems to want it to go away, even as a voluntary program.

As it stands now, it looks like about 300,000 of the jobs that the stimulus bill is supposed to create will actually be filled by illegal immigrants. That seems a little unfair, considering they could have gone to some of the Americans laid off, or the many immigrants that are here following the rules, and are probably also struggling in the bad economy.

Re:Idiocy

[LateArthurDent]

Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree.

Bullshit. I have one or two orders of magnitude greater chance of dying from heart disease, but I still eat greasy burgers. But I don't fear it enough to stop eating greasy burgers. I have a greater chance of dying on a car accident, but I don't fear it enough to avoid getting in my car everyday to go to work. You're telling me I should fear fucking terrorism enough to inconvenience me to take my shoes off at an airport? Fuck that. I don't, and I can't possibly understand how anyone else in the security line can justify it when they had the courage to drive to the airport and eat mcdonalds for lunch. Hell, the chances of their plane crashing from accidental causes is greater.

Terrorism is a non-threat. When you believe otherwise, you're doing the terrorists a favor because terrorizing you is the whole point.

Re:Idiocy

[BigSlowTarget]

Understood though I did get your original point and I agree with it. My post was not intended to target you, more to question the level to which being terrified by terrorism is justifiable. I don't think it is. You will not die from a terrorist act. Given you aren't in a military occupation that statement is 99.99%+ likely to be true.

Less than 30 years ago we were under much greater threat of widespread death and destruction during the cold war and everyone seemed to understand that giving away all their freedoms wasn't appropriate. Why should it be appropriate now when there is no reasonable scenario that approaches that level of danger and destruction?

Why are they exaggerating the threat? I think its best not to assume a conspiracy where simple laziness and greed can do the job. Fear is a useful tool for politics - it makes people pay attention.

Re:Idiocy

[noric]

The incentives are straightforward:

The pilot program is only in select locations, so they cannot put people in jail/rooms. This is because the publicity surrounding detention would deter people from exiting the country in say, Detroit.

The pilot, and ultimately any partial coverage (i.e. less than 100% exits gathering prints), will rely on the cost/economics of traveler's inconvenience. People may be willing to drive 100 miles west to avoid being printed, but you can only get printed once (you only care once), and certain things like plane tickets are non-transferable.

Presumably when total coverage is reached, you simply won't be able to leave the country without giving the feds your prints. But, by then, assuming gradual increase of coverage, for the reasons above, it is very likely you already gave your prints anyways =).

There's really only one way to truly solve this idiocy: less federal power (i.e. transferred to states) and better education. Unfortunately these are two long term solutions, and better education requires removal of the public system, so sit back and enjoy the ride.

Re:Idiocy

[I80c51]

Tell it to Apache, Navajo, Sioux and the rest... This is just too good - the society of immigrants complaining of... immigrants. :D Yes! Deport them all!!! :D

Re:Idiocy

[LateArthurDent]

No. Fear isn't all or nothing. It's stupid not to fear terrorism at all.

No, it is not. If you're going to be afraid of things that have almost no chance of ever affecting you at all, you're not going to live your life normally. In fact, we're NOT living our lives normally because of that stupid fear. We're putting up with crap we would never have put up with before 9/11. Get the number of American deaths due to terrorism (any type, including not on american soil) over the past 10 years. Get the number of American deaths due to traffic accidents over the past 10 years. Then tell me the fear is justified.

19 guys were able to do significant damage to the US. They since have successfully operated in Britain and Spain. Isn't that frightening on some level?

No more than Timothy McVeigh's bombing, but nobody seemed to go batshit insane after that (2 people caused ~600 deaths with the oklahoma city bombing vs 19 people caused ~3000 deaths with 9/11...I'm not sure why this is relevant, but your point seemed to be that because only 19 people caused all that damage, this is something that has never happened before, so I guess I should point out that in actually deaths per person responsible ratios were higher with an event of terrorism that happened before). They found out who was responsible, had a trial and that was that.

Look, I'm not saying law enforcement and intelligence agencies don't need to take steps to try to prevent that type of thing, but it's a pure law enforcement problem. It's like gang violence. You don't change your life because some kid on the other side of your town got shot. You don't change your life because some nutjobs are killing people. You worry about things that actually have a chance of affecting you. You don't want to die of cancer, be afraid of smoking cigarettes. You want to avoid dying in a traffic accident? Try to be a more attentive and careful driver. You're afraid of heart disease? Try to eat healthier. Those steps you take will have a much greater positive effect in your life than getting fingerprinted when you leave the country ever will.

I really don't get it. Some crazed American anarchist bombs a building and people react normally to it (there's grief, there's anger, that's all normal. We don't have a fundamental change and start fingerprinting people who enter the proximity of federal buildings). Some crazed religious nutjobs hijack planes and crash them into buildings and everyone freaks out because they're foreign and hold a religion not of their own and people start thinking it's ok to wiretap our phones without warrants, it's ok to fingerprint americans just because they're leaving the country, it's ok to hold people prisoner without trials...

Also, fear is usally not of death. More people are frightened of public speaking than death.

Alright, "fear of public speaking" is a fear, but it's a completely different fear than fear of death. It gives you some knots in your stomach, depending on your anxiety levels it might even cause you to avoid speaking in public at all. If you're genuinely afraid that you're going to die, you're going to do things that you would never do under any other circumstances. People were jumping off the towers because they'd rather die by splatting in the concrete than in the fire. You're not going to jump off a building because you're rather not make that 3pm presentation. This is my entire point, btw...you should be more scared of traffic accidents than terrorism, just like you should be more scared of death than of public speaking.

Fear of violence, uncontrolled violence, is scarier than dynig at an old age in a medical bed

Seriously? Dying a slow, possibly painful, most likely undignified (being unable to go to the bathroom by yourself) death is scarier to you than 2 minutes of panic followed by a quick death?

Bottom line is that

Re:Idiocy

[BrokenHalo]

and looks like he is from Egypt. When I asked him where he was from he told me Canada...

Well, why do you all get so wound up about skin colour anyway?

I understand there was supposed to have been some guy by the name of Jesus who is meant to be fairly highly regarded in the US, and I believe he would have had a middle-Eastern appearance too.

Re:Idiocy

[Kazymyr]

There are a few countries in Eastern Europe that are so racially uniform it's not even funny.

Re:Idiocy

[Fred_A]

If you'd read the TSA manual, you'd know that "if it's tanned, put your gloves on and tell it to bend over".
And re telling the difference from a Liberian...
Like TSA employees would know where they'd come from... "yeah, right, like there's a place like Liberion, Ya don't fool me! Bend over mister !"

And just when I thought it was safe to go back (or even switch planes) to the US too...
Well, since I'm blond maybe I'll get through despite my French passport (although French bashing seems to have subsided, outside of web boards).

Don't think the US airport people are the only ones to be clueless though. I travel quite a bit and for some reason, the stupidest they are, the closest to the public they get. It's a worldwide trend. Why would the US be left out ?

Advertisement:
"You have trouble deciphering this text, your friends hate you, you can barely mumble in English ? Have you considered a job in airport security ?"

Re:Idiocy

[identity0]

Oh, yes. There was one math professor I had (Mr. Samardar) who the kids in class would make a game out of trying to guess where he was from. He was darker-skinned than most white people but not really 'dark', and his accent was light and sounded kind of European(to me, at least). Popular guesses included Egypt and Peru.

Now I just looked him up, it seems he was the chair of the local Iranian-American Association. So there's at least one person who couldn't easily be profiled by looks.

Add to that the fact that Latin Americans can range from very European-looking to very native-looking, and you have a lot of chances of misjudgement.

And speaking as an Asian, people from my country often think I'm from another country(because of my clothes or hairstyle, I think), and I know Asians in the US who have been mistaken for Native American.

Re:Idiocy

[dkf]

Terrorism is a non-threat.

That's wrong. Terrorism is a threat. It's just not a very significant one for most people so long as a few simple steps are taken (like not taking random parcels onto planes for strangers) most of which are just plain old common sense anyway.

Yes, have specialist police units watch suspected terrorists. After all we do the same to suspected mobsters and spies too. Also yes to keeping guns and knives out of the cabin (I don't want anyone going postal near to me, and planes are stressful places). But cutting out a bunch of the useless security theater would be a good thing too. In particular, the universal shoe checks and the liquid ban just make people real grouchy. If we could come up with a reliable way of scanning luggage without having to take laptops out of our bags, that'd be even better since then going through security would be a breeze.

(FWIW, the US probably wasn't applying enough security checks before 9/11. But now they've gone the other way...)

Re:Idiocy

[suman28]

I didn't realize that people that took so many pains entering the U.S. illegally, took planes back to their country so frequently or so easily. "Yeah, it took me 2 weeks of walking the Arizona desert, in 120 degree heat and I almost died of thirst and hunger, and being chased by dogs, vultures, and minute men, but let me go by plane to see my family, and make the same exciting and adventurous trip back". Maybe some people do that, but I can't see how many illegal people would travel this way. This clearly seems to be yet another way of keeping tabs on people, who are in the United States legally, but are not citizens. I wonder how long it will be, before they extend this policy to U.S citizens as well.

One step at a time . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[vux984]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Border lineups will be days long, and the government will be suing SAP for promising that it would work, based on a fraudulent tech demo that's gone missing?

Re:One step at a time . . .

[tsm_sf]

You can see how they take little baby steps. One at a time. In ten years imagine what will be happening.

Weird to see a post from 1999 pop up randomly.

Re:One step at a time . . .

[dov_0]

In Soviet Russia, um. Well, actually it's getting pretty similar...

Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

All countries exercise at least some control over who can enter, but there's only one kind of country that erects barriers to who can leave. How long until you guys build a wall? Oh, apparently you've started already.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[nokiator]

Welcome to East Germany 2.0!

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[spooje]

Actually Japan does this all the time. If you're trying to leave and they found out you over stayed your visa they'll arrest, try and imprison you for the maximum amount of time then deport you. I had trouble leaving once because a government agency kept my foreigner card. I had to wait in custody about an hour, making the plane late before they decided to let me go.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

It'll be interesting to see, the first time some guy (or girl) has the stones to tell the customs agent to screw off.

Even better, what happens if your fingerprints DO come up as an illegal alien? Do they not let you leave? Give you a completely redundant kick to speed you on your way?

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[Cimexus]

GP is mostly correct. Most countries require you to go through immigration both on arrival and departure.

I'm an Australian with an American wife and so travel very frequently between the two countries. Both countries require you to go through immigration and customs on arrival (as you would expect). Australia requires you go through immigration upon departure as well (NOT customs). The US doesn't require that you do anything at all upon leaving, however. Frankly I don't know how they keep track of who is in their country...must be via airline records or something.

Note that the immigration check upon exiting Australia is just so they know who's in and who's out of the country at any given time. Arrivals - departures = possible visa overstayers. For citizens, it's also so they know where you are in case of crisis (e.g. if they know you've gone to country X, and a war breaks out in country X, they will try to contact you and assist you to get back home). It's not a customs check, and they don't fingerprint you or anything. It's just a "my name is X, and I'm leaving".

Hell, Australia doesn't fingerprint you for arrival either. In fact, the only place my fingerprints are on record anywhere on Earth is the AMERICAN DHS. Sorta funny (and scary) that my own government doesn't have my fingerprints, but some random foreign one does...

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, "yo, I'm leaving", "yes sir, here, let me stamp your passport."

That's not a barrier to leaving a country, and it's not "customs." Requiring you to be fingerprinted is a whole different league. Interesting that this story shows up alongside another today where some cancer patient was detained because they couldn't get a good set of fingerprints off him. I actually just got back from a conference in Hawaii with this guy who got hassled at the border because he climbs and his fingerprints aren't all they could be.

Re:Barriers to leaving a country

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not saying you are... yet. It's interesting that your country is building nice big fences and at the same time starting to do things like take your fingerprints when you want to leave. How does that help keep illegals out?"

totalitarianism

[u4ya]

it keeps creeping in, step by step, for as long as enough of us remain silent.

Why?

[sweatyboatman]

"We are trying to ensure we know more about who came and who left," [Michael Hardin] said. "We have a large population of illegal immigrants in the United States - we want to make sure the person getting on the plane really is the person the records show to be leaving."

huh? so the epidemic of people pretending to leave the country on commercial flights by booking flights and sending doppelgangers in their place is finally over! rejoice Americans! we are all now super safe!

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

I think he is being honest, as weird as it sounds. Think about it, why was the DHS formed? Why does it seem so incompetent?

Originally Bush was opposed to it, but under congressional pressure relented and agreed to its creation. Ever since then it has done almost nothing except......export illegal immigrants. It does that a lot. So I am theorizing that Bush thought, "Fine. They can build the organization and call it whatever they want, but since I'm in charge, it will DO what I want." And what he wanted was to get rid of illegal immigrants. So that's what happened. Besides a few token operations to live up to its name, it focuses almost entirely on getting rid of illegal immigrants. Has nothing to do with security.

Re:Why?

[LaskoVortex]

Besides a few token operations to live up to its name, [DHS] focuses almost entirely on getting rid of illegal immigrants. Has nothing to do with security.

Not any more. Why was the DHS at the tax day tea parties in several cities? Here's one example. This is an agency used by the party ruling the executive branch to intimidate supporters of the opposing party. It was used that way under Bush and sadly is apparently used that way under Obama.

Re:Why?

[phantomfive]

You linked to a site sponsored by illuminati conspiracy theorists and homeopathic medicine providers. That's hardly a reliable source. I would trust slashdot before I'd trust that site, and that's saying something.

Won't work

[royallthefourth]

None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane.

This leaves two options: either these guys are really stupid, or the real goal is different from the stated goal.

Re:Won't work

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the illegal immigrants I've ever met have arrived by airplane

Not necessarily. There may be people arriving legally on student or tourist visas, and then overstaying them (sometimes permanently).

Still, the way the justification was fomulated leads me to believe something was not said.

Re:Won't work

[rubycodez]

those visa people are ALREADY fingerprinted coming and going

B frankin S

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah this seems like a real efficient way to catch illegal immigrants, I'm sure most of the come to the U.S. to catch international flights from Atlanta and Detroit. That's how dumb the government knows the average person is.

Free

[Longjmp]

U.S. of A. the Land Of The Free. Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Re:Free

[cptdondo]

No shit. I was born under communism; I vividly recall the grade school lectures about leaving the country being a crime.

We left there to the land of the free. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would live to see the day when borders in formerly communist nations are no more and Americans must present the proper papers and fingerprints! to leave the country.

Re:Free

[Mashiki]

It's funny, my mother is a East-German child. Grew up the first 15yrs of her life there, and happily tells me tales of what life was like. I read the article, and felt my BP shoot up about 40pts sitting here, the thought of Americans and someone saying "Papers"(or fingerprints) is chilling.

I didn't think I'd live to see such a flip either. This type of shit is insane, so who let what bat-shit nuts go wild down in the US anyway? Afraid of government? Hell you're letting it walk all over you.

They arlready do this to non US residents

[Roy Ward]

As someone who occasionally visits your country (with a New Zealand passport and valid work visa), I can tell you that all non-US citizens are already subject to this indignity, for no better reasons than you will be. It's unfortunately just the next step (I've never been fingerprinted going into any other country, or any other time at all for that matter).

Re:They arlready do this to non US residents

[Aceticon]

I've been to the US many years ago, before 9/11 - I still have a US Visa in my passport (not needed anymore).

Since then I've moved countries twice and went on vacations (and sometimes business) to countless countries.

Yet I've never again been to the US - I purposefully refuse to travel there because of things like this and I've even been offered a job in Silicon Valley a couple of years ago.

20 or 30 years ago the USA was a nation admired by the vast majority of people out there - a land of dreams for many, even in other rich nations and amongst well educated people. Nowadays it's just a majorly fucked-up place.

The USA looks a lot like a modern empire on it's twilight years - a bit like ancient Rome when the empire was unraveling.

Many of the greatest ancient empires collapsed due to internal corruption rather than fell to external enemies. What's with the USA now looks a lot like that.

Re:I can't imagine

[Nefarious Wheel]

Inspired by a superb role model, the US Department of the Interior wants to "index all the world's fingerprints". I mean, why stop at the border? Offer it as a free service that offers paper stars - enough paper stars and you get a pony. A free pony.

What if you refuse?

[jmv]

When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?

Re:What if you refuse?

[phantomfive]

LOL I once met this guy from El Salvador who was in the US illegaly working. After a while, he got sick of it and wanted to go home. Around that time he saw some immigration officers walking down the street, and announced, "I am here illegaly! Send me home!" They laughed and told him to work and get his own ticket. So he gave up and did.

Re:What if you refuse?

[characterZer0]

What if you are a US citizen?

Re:i totally agree with your sentiment

[Chabo]

In all fairness, he did say one kind of country, for which I think he meant "viciously authoritarian", or something similar.

What shoudl happen

[EkriirkE]

I would love to see a backlash or movement for when this takes effect to have people install de-fingerprinting kiosks outside the airports... maybe offering a swipe of super glue before entry to the airport. If only a few people do this it wont work so well, but if masses do it...???

Re:I can't imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

They already fingerprint non-Americans entering your country.

what a difference 10 years make

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'm a Canadian, and ten years ago, I would have voted to join the US. I felt that Americans recognised the value of their freedoms and that they had, and would fight to keep, a more free society than just about anywhere else on Earth. Today, I won't even travel there. It reminds me of all those B movies just after WW2 "Achtung! Show me your papers". How could y'all have just let this happen ?

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[arthurpaliden]

"How could y'all have just let this happen ?"

To see how it happened rent the movie "V for Vendeta". It explains it quite nicely.

Re:what a difference 10 years make

[kklein]

Thank you. I had a couple friends (a couple) who were going up to Canada to camp (from Colorado--long trip). The guy is white, the girl, Latina.

They were detained for half a day, subjected to lots of separate questioning... It turns out that for some reason these yahoos got it in their head that the guy had picked up an underage prostitute in Mexico and was fleeing to Canada. The girl was--and looked--27.

After every conceivable search and interrogation, they finally said "You're free to enter Canada," to which the guy said, "You know what? Fuck Canada," and they turned around and went back home.

So that's N=2 now, but I suspect there are a lot more.

maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[__aarzwb9394]

"Why do you hate America?"(TM) so much that you want to leave?

Re:maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[msimm]

I can't wait until we can view ads from sponsors during the scanning. Hope you enjoyed your visit! And Drink Pepsi!

Re:maybe those who are complaining can explain:

[MaskedSlacker]

Precisely because of shit like this.

Ya this is kinda scary

[Sycraft-fu]

Saying who can and can't enter is, well, part of being an nation. I would place it akin to an individual being able to decide who can and can't enter their home. Part of being a sovereign nation is you need to be able to decide who is allowed to come in.

However not being able to leave? Well again I'd say it is like a private individual and while you can tell me I can't come in to your house, once you've let me in you have to let me out when I want to go. Barriers for exit are things that are normally associated with extremely oppressive societies. The USSR had very strict border control and it was more to keep their populace in than to keep foreigners out. Thus I see this as a step down a very bad path.

It also raises some serious legal questions for people like me. I am a citizen of two nations, the US and Canada. I have a right to go to either nation. So is it legal for the US to say "No, you can't go to Canada,"? Who are they to tell me I can't go to my country?

Re:Ya this is kinda scary

[BikeHelmet]

The USSR had very strict border control and it was more to keep their populace in than to keep foreigners out. Thus I see this as a step down a very bad path.

You might be interested in this video:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294790/

It presents some interesting info on Fascism, and the parallels that have been appearing between the US and Germany(of the past).

Even if you disagree with it (unlikely), it educates on what to watch out for. The rights of the US citizen are slowly slipping away.

Now youll know

[alexborges]

How it feeels.

Can't wait for the first 'catch'

[superdave80]

Brave Homeland Security Officer: Place your thumb here.
Traveler: Ok.
*Presses thumb to scanner*
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Ah-ha! This says that you are in this country illegally! I've got you now!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Sooooo... since I'm not allowed to be in this country, do you want me to get on my plane and leave, or what?
Brave Homeland Security Officer: Yes! And, um, never come back! That'll teach you!
Traveler/Illegal immigrant: Yes, this punishment of being delayed from my flight for 30 seconds has surely made me so uncomfortable that I won't ever sneak back into this country. You win.

For regular people.

[copponex]

If a corporation is hurt by a policy, something will be done. If average workers are hurt by a policy, nothing will be done, until the problem can no longer be ignored. It's one of the downplayed societal ills, since illegal immigration has been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations.

Large companies love a huge illegal immigrant population. The state picks up their health and education bills, and the illegal workers accept lower wages that can be used to threaten other workers with.

Your Papers, Please

[kylben]

it will be used in part to crack down on the US population of illegal immigrants."

The only way fingerprinting could possibly aid in tracking illegal immigrants is if it was used to track every single US citizen and legal alien. Then anyone caught on the street without their fingerprints in the system is by definition illegal. And even that is only useful if people are routinely fingerprinted on the street. I'm pretty sure there's a name for that kind of system.

The more likely use, down the road a (very short) way, is to make emigration illegal, or at least restricted. There's a name for places where that happens, too.

Everybody likes to talk about police states in the past tense, or in the abstract. Nobody expects the Spa... the real dictatorships. They aren't created all at once out of the blue, and they're seldom openly announced as such.

/. identifies the problem and gives the solution!

[pbrooks100]

Time to start taking capecitabine... http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/28/1617225&from=rss

Re:Honestly, what's the big deal?

[ledow]

"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers entering the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers exiting the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers changing flights at the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint travelers flying past the country? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint drivers? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint cyclists? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint pedestrians? I think this is a good idea"
"So what if they want to fingerprint everyone? I think this is a good idea"

It's called "unnecessary feature creep". Providing fingerprints at a border helps no more than providing other, non-biometric, information at the border, whether you've just murdered someone or not. Either you're on the database (and thus can be flagged in an instant by having an A.P.B. put out) or you're not. But unnecessary feature creep paves the way to a surveillance society. 50 years ago we didn't even *have* this technology, now it's being made compulsory if you want to fly, drive, cycle, ... and eventually it's just compulsory.

Plus, that data is *personal* under most country's definitions of personal data. In the EU that means it's subject to the Data Protection Act which means I have a legal assurance (whether it's carried out or not is another matter) that the data will be kept private, not be disclosed except for explicit purposes and that only authorised people will see it. The US does not, and never has, provided such guarantees to visitors (even if it intended to break them anyway once they were on paper)

"Please tell me how this is an infringement on your 'rights'?"

I have the right to pass freely through almost every port in the world without undue let or hindrance. The US just removed that. I also have the right to protect my personal information and to refuse to give biometric data if I so wish. That right was just lost. Just because in America you didn't HAVE those rights in the first place, that's no reason to not understand why other people are upset (and we are by definition talking about international travellers here).

"The DHS/ICE already do biometric scanning of all *permanent* residents when they're entering the country, and I mean fingerprinting all the fingers in both of your hands. People with US Passports, by comparison, are waived through, which I think is a incredibly stupid thing."

Yep. Because you've just scanned the fingerprints of someone that, by definition, you have zero record of anywhere else (because they are not a US citizen until that time). Yet you let known criminals walk through because they have a US passport. That's just STUPID. And another nail in the "we need this" coffin. It's an *unnecessary* measure.

"Besides, the EU has been doing this for quite some time. Get over it."

No they haven't. I am an EU citizen and have NEVER provided my fingerprints EVER for ANY purpose in ANY country - I even have a 10 year British passport, a 10-year British driving license (both with EU-certified RFID etc. in them) and never had to provide anything but an authenticated photo and documentation (for the next renewal in a decade's time it might be more tricky to avoid being fingerprinted if people don't stand up to this crap NOW) - and only last year I travelled through 10 countries in the EU within two weeks on a cruise ship. In fact, that's why I'm not flying to the US ever again - that and the "we need the right to copy your laptop data and not tell you what we did with it" - that's a KILLER for me, because it means I would be breaking the law in my own country by disclosing private, personalised business data.

You're throwing a right away every time you say "I don't see a problem with it, so okay". What you should be saying is "I don't see the need. So why should I?". Whethe

Exit Tax

[copponex]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html

To leave the country, you have to pay taxes for all of your assets, and renounce your US citizenship if you'd like to stop paying the IRS.

I'm actually in favor of regulations against capital flight, but this is probably going a little too far...

Movie Idea

[arthurpaliden]

In the early years of The War on Terror, the American city of Cincinnati attracts people from all over the United States. Many are transients trying to get out on the next plane to Canada or even Europe, a few are just trying to make a buck...Two DHS couriers have been killed and the letters of transit they were carrying have gone missing. These letters are blank and represent freedom for two, all the action centers around a cafe ....

Now you know..

[msimm]

we hated the USSR out of jealously. And now look at how swiftly we race to embrace statism.

As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I might be less critical of such actions if it weren't for the fact that "security" isn't being improved or actually even being addressed.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Of course, this was also said by a major figure of what we would call, today, an insurgent force, fighting against the established government of the country. He spent much of that war in another country, raising funds to support what those who claimed they had a legitimate government considered to be a terrorist action. By recent standards, for the funding part alone, two guys were sentenced to 65 years, just this week.

His name was Benjamin Franklin.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[hairyfeet]

I know this will get me marked as flamebait or troll or whatever, but frankly I don't care. You want to know why we have trouble with terrorism and have all this crap going on in the Middle East? Because pretty much our ENTIRE Middle East Policy of the last 50+ years can be summed up in this sentence- "Jesus won't come back! Praise Jesus!"

I really wish I was joking, but sadly I am not. You have one of the most powerful nations on earth basing an entire region's policies on whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy will be able to walk down out of a cloud. That is pretty fucking scary. Hell look at this where they were putting top sheets on the war plans for Iraq with scripture!

Now I don't care which bloody religion you are, that is fucking scary shit! NO country, especially one with as much devastating firepower as the USA, should be basing their foreign policy on what it will take to ensure some 2000 year old dead guy will float down from the clouds. And Christians, a word of advice- if your God is so weak that the only way he can "come back" is with the backing of the F-18 and the USA giving Israel weapons tech? Then you might want to look up in your good book what it says about a guy named "AntiChrist" because I don't think an actual deity would need the USA to save his ass, or that of his "chosen people" okay? if he can part the Red Sea and turn rivers into blood I think he can take care of himself,okay?

I am not saying the Arabs aren't as much to blame, but to anyone that isn't a Christian this frankly looks like the height of insanity. It also gives Israel a license to do whatever they want because they know the hawks in the USA will scream "Jesus won't come back!" and back them no matter what. Allow me to quote Moshe Dayan describing the events before the Six Day War for an example-"We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado"

And the whole reason they could do that was because they knew the USA, being led by the "Jesus won't come back!" brigade, will always back them up. Maybe if we didn't they would have motivation to try to work out something with their neighbors, instead of starting shit. And until we base our Mid East policy on something other than "Jesus won't come back" everyone in the region who is NOT Israeli will hate us. We can't base our entire foreign policy on a 3000+ year old book and whether or not a 2000+ year old dead guy will have a place to land his cloud. Sorry, but that is just fricking nuts!

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[OrangeTide]

Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't rule US foreign policy. While these people do exist, and have had some influence in the US federal government at various times, it is not as absolute as you paint it to be.

We're far more about pandering to our base, making uninformed decisions, and using sovereign nations as pawns in domestic politics and PR campaigns.

Re:As a famous terrorist leader once said...

[hairyfeet]

Thank you. What I think is sad is how many are either spouting bible verses or saying"those muzzies don't need an excuse because they'll just blame us for supporting Israel". Uuuhhh...how exactly would we know, when Israel has been stirring up shit almost from the day the Israeli flag first flew and we have been handing them as much firepower as they can carry all the way? That is 50+ years of "White Man's Burden" and you wonder why they hate us there?

Do any of you realize we are talking about 84 BILLION of YOUR money being sent to Israel every year, even when we are broke, so "Jesus can come back! Praise Jesus!"? Being an ally of someone is one thing, bankrolling them to the tune of 84 billion is a whole different ballgame. Stick your head in your 3000 year old book if you wish, but the arabs have a REASON to hate us. It is because American bombs are falling on their heads and they are being shot by American guns. Every year you and your families are getting your share of a 84 billion dollar bill added to your children's future so "Jesus can come back!".

If your God is so damned weak that he cannot keep a little bity country like Israel alive without 84 billion dollars worth of American guns, then I'm sorry, but you really should be looking up the "AntiChrist" because a God would not need you to save Israel. he would be perfectly capable of doing it himself. And I repeat: It is complete fucking insanity to base the Middle East policies of one of the most powerful nations on this earth on whether or not a 2000 year old man has a place to park his cloud. That is just fucking nuts. And handing out 84 billion dollar party favors when we have so many losing their homes and jobs is about as unchristian as you can get. Spend that money on Americans and stay the hell out of other peoples shitstorms!

Re:They already have my fingerprints....

[Grishnakh]

They take your fingerprints when you buy a gun.

No, they don't. Unless you live in a police state like Illinois or something, but if you live there, you have no business with a gun. If you want a gun, move to a state that isn't so gun-unfriendly. There's at least 40 of them.

Here in Arizona, you can buy all the guns you want with no fingerprints, just the regular Federal instant-check form.

However, if you want a concealed-carry license, you need fingerprints for that.

Re:What?!??!?

[interkin3tic]

This has got to be a joke

Homeland security does love a good laugh.

Actually, this is a devious plot on their part.

1. Introduce ridiculously intrusive (yet this side of believable) plan which will do nothing but annoy people, as a pilot program
2. Wait until enough people are annoyed at it or some one in government starts talking about cutting spending on security and doesn't immediately get thrown out of office by voters
3. Announce you've decided not to do it based on feedback/because you don't have enough money to keep america safe
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

Detroit and Atlanta

[oldspewey]

Detroit and Atlanta are both Delta hubs. So you can avoid this "pilot" by choosing a different airline to leave the US ... at least until the "pilot" expands.

Small business is what I do.

[copponex]

I've run several small companies, grossing from 500k to 6 million. I know about the red tape. I've also worked in larger corporations, and I know about their internal red tape.

What I've come to realize is that large corporations are inherently tyrannical. Further down another poster makes a salient point about China - it's very business friendly because it totally empathizes with the way they operate. Orders come from above and are not to be questioned. Conformity to this tyranny is a prerequisite to be invited to the party, and if you have a problem with the top rung management, good luck getting an audience with them.

Conversely, small businesses like the ones I prefer are far more democratic. The lowest paid employee often has direct contact with the owner. This makes his impact radically different than serving the function of something that has not yet been automated or outsourced. He has room for creativity, room to make a difference in how the business is run. He is a person instead of a process.

Your sig asks how the powerful became powerful in our country. Since we have moved so far away from the democratic ideal, of the rule of law and men being equals in front of it, to celebrating personalities and the new aristocracy of corporate power, the answer is that money has become more important than values. Those who are powerful in today's America accept that early, and exploit as many people as they can to achieve their wealth. The wealthy pass on the spoils of their exploits to their children, who dutifully try to replicate what their ancestors accomplished.

The problem with this system is that it is totally against free market principles. There is no merit or true value from making money from money. That's why usury laws are so important, and also why they vanished from our country early in the 20th century. That's why taxes were always raised when we went to war, to make sure the powerful weren't so quick to send our children off to die. When money is the only vote, what kind of society do you think you will end up with? Does Bill Gates or Steve Jobs really deserve billions of votes compared to the tens of thousands given to a school teacher? A person given these parameters should not be surprised at what the result is - a society that worships wealth and power, and engages in destroying the only check to that power, which is a democratic government.

But the cruellest of our revenue laws, I will venture to affirm, are mild and gentle in comparison of some of those which the clamour of our merchants and manufacturers has extorted from the legislature for the support of their own absurd and oppressive monopolies. Like the laws of Draco, these laws may be said to be all written in blood.
--Adam Smith

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
--Major General Butler, USMC Retired
"War is a Racket"

Does NOT apply to US Citizens

[adiemus]

TFA seems to be wrong about this including US citizens. While I think fingerprinting anyone, citizen or not, coming into the country isn't something we should be doing, and certainly not when exiting, the bit about fingerprinting exiting US citizens is found nowhere other than in the article from IT News Australia. The actual DHS press release is very specific that this is a planned extension to US-VISIT and, as such, only applies to non-US-citizens:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=AUSASAIR.story&STORY=/www/story/05-28-2009/0005034173&EDATE=THU+May+28+2009,+01:22+PM

Several additional articles all clearly indicating that this applies only to non-citizens:

http://www.fcw.com/Articles/2009/05/27/Web-US-VISIT-pilots.aspx
http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090528_7835.php?oref=rss

Re:Does NOT apply to US Citizens

[Hays]

Indeed, the original article has been updated with an editor's note now to indicate that it does not apply to US citizens. The summary needs to be clarified.

Editor's Note

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone see the Editor's note? Should probably update the Post.

Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record.

Correction: Only for NON-US citizens

[tfischer]

The summary description on ./ is wrong. If one does RFA all the way to the end, one will see the following:

Editors Note - This story originally contained a representation that the biometrics trial in Atlanta and Detroit included the fingerprint scanning of US citizens. This has since been proved to be incorrect and the story has been modified - only non-US citizens will be expected to provide a biometric record.

As a US citizen living in France, and often travelling through Detroit and Atlanta to get to/from Chicago, I'm relieved that I won't be delayed by this hassle. As a human being, I don't agree with the idea of requiring visiters to submit their fingerprints to the the US government - I feel it is infringing on one's human rights and/or privacy, and feel ashamed when I see fellow travellers submitting to this procedure upon entry into the US - but it's too early in the morning for me to formulate a clear and logical argument against the requirement...