bardo1

http://tinyurl.com/2za3yp

Next: subcutaneous computer chip implants???

PatrickLondon

Interesting, when seen from the other side of the pond:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...irlineindustry

JOHNOD

As a person who flys outside the US several times a year I don't mind being fingerprinted or photographed. Anything that makes us even the least bit safer is OK with me and as PatrickLondon states "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander".

J62

I don't understand the chagrin bardo1. The US already fingerprints visitors coming into the US.

I have no problem with it.

avalon

"The problem with border fingerprint systems is that their success rate diminishes as they grow, said Davies, director of the London-based Privacy International. "Adding a hundred million fingerprints of dubious quality on top of an inaccurate database will exponentially increase the failure rate," he said."

EXACTLY

And no one is safer in the end. All McVeigh had to do was visit a few fertilizer stores and then we had OK.City

flanneruk

Europe's greatest money waster wants Britain (Europe's largest receiver of non-Europeans) to squander more money on pointlessly inconveniencing the general public.

You call that news? They've been at it for the past 35 years.

kleeblatt

Stated before: the US requires incoming visitors to be fingerprinted and eye-scanned. In Switzerland, separate passes are made for US requirements.

Personally, I think it's only fair for Europe to require fingerprints from US visitors since the US does the same.

travelgourmet

I have no problem with this, not because it is fair, but because it just isn't worth getting hyped up about.

This is about politicians everywhere making a big show of beating back the enemy before they reach their shores. Of dubious actual value, of course, but I don't think that is the primary concern of the politicians.

kleeblatt

Should I put my cell phone, Ipod and PSP in my checked luggage when entering the US?
Are US officials doing data search on electronic devicess as The Washington Post claims?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020604763.html

sandi_travelnut

Why are we complaining about this? You and I didn't make these rules, so we all comply with them to get from point A to B. It's not like complaining about it here will change a thing.

travelgourmet

The Washington Post article is the sort of lousy journalism that makes my blood boil. They cite a couple of cases, yet make no effort to give any context. Is it 1 out of every 100 people who get searched? One out of every 1000? One out of every 10000? One out of every 100000. Individual anecdotes mean nothing, except the journalist is lazy or doesn't really have a story - I have had my bags pretty throroughly searched entering both the US and UK, at various points in the past. I don't consider that to be cause for an article in the newspaper or reason for concern among those on this message board.

That customs officials in any country have broad authority to search personal belongings, including correspondence is not new or revolutionary. That some people are actually searched does not qualify as news. What would qualify as news is if the prevalence of those searches has increased, yet the Post does not offer any sort of information as to whether that was the case.

Pete_R

<i>Why are we complaining about this? You and I didn't make these rules, so we all comply with them to get from point A to B. It's not like complaining about it here will change a thing.</i>

These rules are made by governments that represent us though, these things are done in our name.

You are correct that complaining here won't help.

Europeans should complain to their MEP and MP (or equivalent.)

US citizens should complain to your representatives.

Miscellaneous foreigners should let their MPs know that they will be complaining if they should try to copy this non-sense.

Apres_Londee

Isn't the difference between the two articles amazing? I wonder what the deal is, who's really pushing for this, the US or the EU?

I'm guessing the US, because of the cozy relationship with a gigantic American weapons manufacturer that is also heavily involved in the personal data collection &amp; processing business, as well as biometric technology.

IMO this is about making money from goverment contracts, not safety. Privacy is a thing of the past.

Josser

I see that the US is demanding to have the personal details of people who are only flying over the US, not even landing.
Do they think that we intend chucking bombs out of the aircraft windows?

travelgourmet

&quot;Isn't the difference between the two articles amazing?&quot;

That is because the articles are about two different things.

The Post article deals with proposed EU legislation aimed at improving their border security. I have seen nothing indicating that these &quot;enhancements&quot; are directly related to US requests. The proposal does, however, incorporate most of the oft-villified components of the recent changes to the US entry process, including fingerprinting and other biometrics, advanced pax data, and requiring those who need Visas to personally visit a consulate or embassy.

The Guardian article deals with proposed changes to the Visa Waiver Program administered by the US. These changes are as a result of attempts to tie the VWP to security cooperation and the like rather than to the likelihood of illegal immigration. This is a bid by the Bush administration to reward places like Poland, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere for their recent cooperation with terror-fighting efforts.

ira

&gt;&quot;Adding a hundred million fingerprints of dubious quality on top of an inaccurate database will exponentially increase the failure rate,&quot;....

I take issue with the &quot;dubious quality&quot; and with the &quot;inaccurate database&quot;.

These days, fingerprints are digitally scanned. It's not like the old ink and paper method.

If one searches a data base and finds more than one name for a set of fingerprints, does that mean that the database is inaccurate, or that there is a bad guy out there?
...................................
Hi S,

OK. 3 people (out of how many millions?) were inconvenienced due to security concerns.

&gt;Should I put my cell phone, Ipod and PSP in my checked luggage when entering the US?

Only if you want them to go missing.
..................................
HI J,

&gt;Do they think that we intend chucking bombs out of the aircraft windows?

Of course not. However, if you are on a watch list, it would be useful to know where you are and where you are going.

Apres_Londee

Thanks for pointing that out, travelgourmet. I just went back to re-scan the articles and see now that one is about travelling to Europe, and the other about Europeans travelling to the US. I think, anyways- neither article was all that clear to me, but maybe I'm extra dopey today because I have the flu.

I'm of two sides on these security measures. On one hand, I know that entering another country is a privilege not a right, and as much as I hate the idea of being fingerprinted, I appreciate the need for security and control. On the other hand, it's not right that private companies are involved and I do wonder how far all of this will go.

sandi_travelnut

&quot;These rules are made by governments that represent us though, these things are done in our name.&quot;

Don't even get me started on awful things the government has done in our name.....

bardo1

PatrickLondon,
Interesting article. Still - two wrongs don't make a right.

NeoPatrick

It's interesting how few people seem to see anything wrong with this (I'm one of those by the way), when Europeans here (particularly the Brits) are constantly screaming about how no one will want to come to the US due to such total privacy invasion as fingerprinting and being treated like criminals. I always thought that was much ado about nothing. Maybe it depends on which side of the pond you're coming from?