Laughing Boy wrote:
] ] Visitors to the United States with visas will be greeted
] ] with a demand for fingerprints and photographs Monday as
] ] a government program intended to fight terrorism takes
] ] effect.
] ]
] ] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security says the goal of
] ] the US VISIT program is to track the millions of people
] ] who come to the United States every year on business,
] ] student and tourist visas -- and to use the information
] ] as a tool against terrorists.
] ]
] ] US-VISIT stands for United States Visitor and Immigrant
] ] Status Indicator Technology.
]
] Don't you just get warm fuzzies all over everytime you are
] reminded you're living in a police state???
]
] LB

Actually, I don't have that big a problem with this, depending how invasive it is. As the picture in the article shows, there are new digital systems where all you have to do to give your prints is to rest your finger on a scanner pad for a moment, and I don't see that as any more invasive than requiring people to display their passport, provide photos of themselves, and fill out the usual visa applications.

If it's the old "ink roller and paper card" system though, then yes, I would find that extremely annoying. I actually think that that old-style perception may be where a lot of the protests are coming from. When most people hear "fingerprints", they immediately envision an inky mess all over their hands, which aside from being embarrassing, would also be extremely inconvenient in an airport while you're already having to juggle bags and tickets.

Speaking as a world traveler, I've been through plenty of border nightmares, especially in third-world countries. I'd routinely have to carry extra photos of myself in case I was asked for one. I more than once was asked for bribes. I accepted as routine that I'd be asked who I was traveling with, where I was staying, and, during the height of the AIDS panic, I was even questioned about my sexual habits (one border guard told me that since I was American, he didn't want me having sex while in his country).

Compared with all that, I see a digital fingerprint scan as trivial. It's a simple check that says, "Yes, I'm the person that this passport was issued for." It makes forging efforts *much* more difficult, and I see that as a good thing.

Elonka wrote:
] If it's the old "ink roller and paper card" system though,
] then yes, I would find that extremely annoying.

I don't think anyone is under that impression. I haven't heard that. I think people are concerned about the fact that finger prints are being taken, and not the method by which they are taken. This is a privacy issue and not a hassle issue. However, I do see this causing delays at ground border crossings as families will now have to get out of their cars in order to get through the border.

] I don't see that as any more invasive than
] requiring people to display their passport, provide photos of
] themselves, and fill out the usual visa applications.

It is slightly more invasive. It is more invasive in the sense that a fingerprint is taken where one was not taken before. 20 years ago you could live and die as an American citizen without ever having your fingerprint taken. The only reason mine has been taken is because I'm a naturalized citizen. The only people whose fingerprints were fed into NCIC were those who had been arrested. Today in many states you have to have one taken to get a driver's license. Some states have resisted this trend. Now you have to get one taken if you wish to travel internationally, and by other governments!

This is significant only when put in context with other changes that are occuring. This new fingerprint collection also includes a warrant check. Courts have ruled that American citizens are not protected by the 4th Amendment when they are not on US Soil. They have allowed U.S. Customs to perform random drug searches of US travellers returning to the US. If you have the fingerprint gear, why not check everyones fingerprints, and not just those of foreigners? How far away from that step are we? If you can legally run a drug search, you can legally run a warrant check, and if we do that, then if anyone in any federal, state, or local government wants you for any reason it is not possible for you to leave the country. How far away is this? What sort of changes to the law will be required to plug the same system into the airports, so that you go through the same checks everytime you fly? We are already making the arguement that more invasive examination in airports is legal because flying is a privledge. We've already extending anti-terror checks at airports to include checks for some kinds of warrants...

Basically, people are concerned about this not because it is a big problem by itself, but rather the concern you are hearing is some of the frogs noticing that the water just got a little warmer, and wondering if it might get so hot in the future that we'll all start to cook.