# Fingerprinting at Airports - any objections?



## z103 (29 Jul 2008)

I'm wondering what people's feeling are about fingerprinting at airports? I recently read a newspaper article that stated that the UK were going to introduce fingerprinting at its airports. As far as I'm aware the USA already do this (and I refuse to travel there because of it).

It seems that people don't seem to be too bothered. Maybe ten or twenty years ago there would have been uproar and protests.

Incidentally, fingerprints are surprisingly easy to forge.


----------



## PM1234 (29 Jul 2008)

I don't understand why people would be bothered? Isn't the point of fingerprinting an attempt to keep people safer. 

What am I missing?


----------



## z103 (29 Jul 2008)

> Isn't the point of fingerprinting an attempt to keep people safer.
> 
> What am I missing?


How does fingerprinting keep people safer?


----------



## DrMoriarty (29 Jul 2008)

I suspect it's not really about safety. Mixing arriving and departing passengers allows BAA to double their retail 'footfall' within the new T5 terminal building.

According to a report in _The Times_,





> The fingerprint plan will affect all domestic passengers using Terminal 5 as well as international travellers who are transferring to an internal flight. It will enable domestic and international passengers to mingle in the shops, restaurants, cafés and bars of the terminal’s departure lounge.


 
[broken link removed] provides some interesting comments and links.


----------



## diarmuidc (29 Jul 2008)

PM1234 said:


> I don't understand why people would be bothered? Isn't the point of fingerprinting an attempt to keep people safer.
> 
> What am I missing?


The bit about it not making people safer?


----------



## PM1234 (29 Jul 2008)

Guess I'm one of the ones not bothered.  ​


----------



## Ash 22 (29 Jul 2008)

Would'nt bother me either. It said on some American programme other night about some scanner that when you pass through it the people operating it can actually see you as though you were not wearing any clothes on. What would you think of that?


----------



## Graham_07 (30 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> Would'nt bother me either. It said on some American programme other night about some scanner that when you pass through it the people operating it can actually see you as though you were not wearing any clothes on. What would you think of that?


 
How do you get jobs there ?

At this point if you want to travel you have to accept the procedures that the relevant authorities think are appropriate for the purpose. We have gone so far with storage of identity & personal information that at this point I don't see fingerprinting much of a further intrusion on what's there. Now retina scanning is another thing. Always remember the scene in Demolition Man  where Stallone's nemesis gets out of jail by scanning the guard's eyeball which he had nicely impaled on a biro.


----------



## diarmuidc (30 Jul 2008)

Graham_07 said:


> We have gone so far with storage of identity & personal information that at this point I don't see fingerprinting much of a further intrusion on what's there.


And we are paying for it with Identity Theft. Add in getting your fingerprints stolen and see how easy it is to change them!


----------



## gebbel (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> I'm wondering what people's feeling are about fingerprinting at airports? .



If it serves as a further deterrent against acts of terrorism etc then how can anybody have a problem with it? Sorry, anybody except the potential terrorist of course!


----------



## Graham_07 (30 Jul 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> And we are paying for it with Identity Theft. Add in getting your fingerprints stolen and see how easy it is to change them!


 
And with a little photoshopping we could make Michael O'Leary Taoiseach. ( now there's not a bad idea  )


----------



## Mpsox (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> I'm wondering what people's feeling are about fingerprinting at airports? I recently read a newspaper article that stated that the UK were going to introduce fingerprinting at its airports. As far as I'm aware the USA already do this (and I refuse to travel there because of it).quote]
> 
> I'm curious, why won't you travel.
> 
> Incidentally when I travelled last year, they only scanned one finger,


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> As far as I'm aware the USA already do this (and I refuse to travel there because of it).


 
It seems a bit of an overreaction alright.

If ever there was a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face (or whatever that phrase is) then this is it.


----------



## shnaek (30 Jul 2008)

gebbel said:


> If it serves as a further deterrent against acts of terrorism etc then how can anybody have a problem with it? Sorry, anybody except the potential terrorist of course!


Fingerprinting deters terrorism? Do you think terrorists arrive through airports and ports? All these security measures are simply means of control over the majority of sheep who will follow any plan no matter how ill conceived until they realise, all too late, that they no longer live in a free state. It is a means of getting the sheep to live in fear so they are more pliable. It is a means of keeping the sheep asleep, of distracting them with nonsense, so they miss all that is really going on around them. It's like slowly boiling a frog. 
Fingerprinting is only the beginning.


----------



## diarmuidc (30 Jul 2008)

gebbel said:


> If it serves as a further deterrent against acts of terrorism etc then how can anybody have a problem with it? Sorry, anybody except the potential terrorist of course!




How does it deter terrorists? 

Most of the terrorists doing the serious damage these days are "one time only" terrorists (ie suicide bombers). Piece of cake to get them through a fingerprint security check. First you send them through with no bombs. If they get through then you know they are not flagged on the database. The second time you strap the bombs on and send them back. Their fingerprints aren't too useful the third time.

And good to see you using the "if you have nothing to hide argument". I assume you won't mind posting your name, address and bank account details here then. After all, you have nothing to hide (unless you are a terrorist)

Edit: I would also suggest reading Bruce Schneier's thoughts on biometrics. He has forgotten more about security than most of us will ever know
And I especially liked this one. A German computer club, copied and published the German Interior minter's fingerprint to show how easily they can be forged.


----------



## MrMan (30 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Fingerprinting deters terrorism? Do you think terrorists arrive through airports and ports? All these security measures are simply means of control over the majority of sheep who will follow any plan no matter how ill conceived until they realise, all too late, that they no longer live in a free state. It is a means of getting the sheep to live in fear so they are more pliable. It is a means of keeping the sheep asleep, of distracting them with nonsense, so they miss all that is really going on around them. It's like slowly boiling a frog.
> Fingerprinting is only the beginning.



I don't regard having my fingerprints taken as a reason for national security and I don't let it happen because I am afraid. I just get on with things that I have to get on with if I want to travel to certain places because what exactly will my not allowing fingerprints to be scanned add to my life? Surely if national security wanted to monitor my movements they can do so without my permission as it stands so why get all paranoid about it. Some times taking a stand is an act of principle but this just seems an act of needless stubborness that will not impact on anyone but the person themselves.


----------



## Teabag (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> I'm wondering what people's feeling are about fingerprinting at airports? I recently read a newspaper article that stated that the UK were going to introduce fingerprinting at its airports. As far as I'm aware the USA already do this (and I refuse to travel there because of it).
> 
> It seems that people don't seem to be too bothered. Maybe ten or twenty years ago there would have been uproar and protests.
> 
> Incidentally, fingerprints are surprisingly easy to forge.




Sounds like you have something to hide....

Note to self : Organise abduction and rendition flight for the man known as Mr Leghorn.


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> Sounds like you have something to hide....


Yes, I do. My fingerprints, DNA, bank details, nudity, innermost thoughts etc, etc... I suppose you have no problems divulging all of this to (anonymous) others?

It's good to see that I am not alone in my feelings.


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Fingerprinting deters terrorism? Do you think terrorists arrive through airports and ports? All these security measures are simply means of control over the majority of sheep who will follow any plan no matter how ill conceived until they realise, all too late, that they no longer live in a free state. It is a means of getting the sheep to live in fear so they are more pliable. It is a means of keeping the sheep asleep, of distracting them with nonsense, so they miss all that is really going on around them. It's like slowly boiling a frog.
> Fingerprinting is only the beginning.


 
Right. This is getting interesting.
There's a definite feel of conspiracy about your post just there.

Out of curiosity, what is your view on 9/11 ?

A lot of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job believe it was orchestrated to instill fear in people with teh result the people pretty much allow teh givernmenst to do anything (such as declare wars, have a new big brother regime where fingerprinting is only teh start).

Are you one of those people with that view on 9/11 ?

(just trying to get an idea here of how extreme your views are in relation to big brother)


----------



## cole (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> Yes, I do. My fingerprints, DNA, bank details, nudity, innermost thoughts etc, etc... I suppose you have no problems divulging all of this to (anonymous) others?
> 
> It's good to see that I am not alone in my feelings.


 
Agreed. Big Brother has an insidious way of creeping into our lives (the real BB not C4's effort!).


----------



## truthseeker (30 Jul 2008)

If you are using a passport legitimately then they already know who you are going through an airport so fingerpinting you makes no difference anyway.
If you are trying to conceal your identity and using a false passport then you must have something to hide, hence you'd be upset at the thought of being fingerprinted.

I really cant see what the big deal is. You are not being asked for a sample of DNA, you are not being asked to divulge your bank details or innermost thoughts, no one is asking you to travel in the nude - so you get fingerprinted in some airports - so what?

Posting your name, address, and bank details on a public internet forum is not quite the same thing as security staff at an airport ensuring that the people travelling are who they say they are. The staff at my bank already have access to my bank account details, name and address, its appropriate for them to do so - its not appropriate for anyone on the internet to have access to those details. 
If I get fingerprinted at an airport only certain agencies will have access to my fingerprint, its not going to be a publically disseminated piece of information.

I would imagine that rather than preventing terrorism it prevents the movements of known criminals under false names.


----------



## cole (30 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I really cant see what the big deal is. You are not being asked for a sample of DNA, you are not being asked to divulge your bank details or innermost thoughts, no one is asking you to travel in the nude - so you get fingerprinted in some airports - so what?


 
Would you have a problem with DNA samples being taken every time you travel?

At the moment that scenario isn't really feasible (results take too long) but in the near future it may become a reality. Where does it end? At what point do we say enough?


----------



## truthseeker (30 Jul 2008)

cole said:


> Would you have a problem with DNA samples being taken every time you travel?
> 
> At the moment that scenario isn't really feasible (results take too long) but in the near future it may become a reality. Where does it end? At what point do we say enough?


 
But thats a comparison of apples and oranges - taking a sample of something from my body is not the same thing as scanning an identifying part of my body.

A fingerprint can only be used for identification. A DNA sample could be used for a number of other purposes.

But - even if they did want a DNA sample when I travelled, so what? I leave DNA around the place all day everyday, hairs, dead skin, half chewed sandwiches. If someone wanted my DNA they wouldnt have to work too hard to get it anyway.


----------



## miselemeas (30 Jul 2008)

The procedure is in place to check your fingerprints with a database containing those of known criminals, no necessarily to just double check your passport details.  I have no problem with it.


 "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security says digital fingerscans makes the exit and entry system to the country more efficient. Before the finger scanning system was implemented, only names and biographical data were checked with databases of suspected terrorists or criminals. The fingerscans make it easier to compare identities with watch lists."​


----------



## wavejumper (30 Jul 2008)

i find it intrusive too and of not much use to "make us safer".

All the 9/11 hijackers had valid passports and went through security check no problem despite carrying weapons.  I think that if someone really set their mind to it, they will find a way to repeat those attacks.  

Time would be better spent trying to defuse the issues that caused those attacks i.e. the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Saudi's oppresive regime and generally the propping of repressive/fascist regimes that work nicely for the west but not for anyone else.


----------



## DublinTexas (30 Jul 2008)

Finger Printing/picture taking at UK airports has nothing to do with security/terrorism, it is so that BAA can maximise the shopping area on offer and tunnel all domestic customers through their shopping center and the resulting problem for immigration. Security is not the cause, their attempt to make you shop is.

Because they merged domestic and international departure they have to find a way to stop someone from entering a domestic departure that has not cleared immigration, which he could if he swapps boarding passes with someone else.

So what they do is if you fly domestic you have to give your fingerprint and/or picture and when you board it is compared that your fingerprint and/or picture is still the same as it was when you entered the shopping center.

This has nothing to do with the window dressing security that followed 9/11, this is just to make more money!


----------



## shnaek (30 Jul 2008)

For those who are happy to have fingerprinting at our airports, I am sure our politicians, Fianna Fail and the Civil Service are delighted at your confidence in them. 

Personally I want to be able to get on a plane and go where I am going with as little inconvenience as possible. I envy the English, with their rail link to Europe. Flying is becoming a real pain these days!

I can't understand though, why the UK government is so keen on fingerprinting civilians when it's own officials go around leaving sensitive military documents on trains. Any chance of taking these guys in to an interrogation centre seeing as how they are leaking these documents to the public?

I wonder if some people here in Ireland would like to go back to the days of interrogation? Because, when they find fingerprinting doesn't work, they might have to go farther in order to protect us. 

The UK is now the most under surveillance society in the world. And is it the safest?


----------



## shnaek (30 Jul 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> Right. This is getting interesting.
> There's a definite feel of conspiracy about your post just there.



Is there? Do you trust politicians and civil service with your data? It is fingerprinting now, but how far do you let it go before you take a stand? Or are you the type that would never take a stand? Why not critique the situation early, and find out exactly how fingerprinting benefits society, before we agree to further erosion of our freedoms? Or are you happy to have your freedom eroded under spurious grounds?



qwertyuiop said:


> Out of curiosity, what is your view on 9/11 ?


What has this got to do with anything? Merely drags the debate off topic. But if it satisfies you I am not one of the conspiracy people regarding 9/11. I love my freedom. And I don't want any busybodies, goons, cranks or idiots trying to take pieces of it away - ****ing down my back and telling me it's raining!


----------



## diarmuidc (30 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> - so you get fingerprinted in some airports - so what?


Did you read the Bruce Schneier link? Do and you will find out "so what"



> If I get fingerprinted at an airport only certain agencies will have access to my fingerprint, its not going to be a publically disseminated piece of information.


Yes there's no way it could become public.



truthseeker said:


> A fingerprint can only be used for identification. .



Yes that's the problem. If we decide to use fingerprints to identify people, then what happens when people start forging fingerprints? How do you modified your compromised fingerprint?


----------



## truthseeker (30 Jul 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Did you read the Bruce Schneier link? Do and you will find out "so what"


Yes I did. But a passport can also be forged and there are many other methods of identify theft - so I still think 'so what'? Im not paranoid enough to worry about it. My fingerprint is only as open to forgery as my passport or anything else.




diarmuidc said:


> Yes there's no way it could become public.


 
This link talks about TWO, yes TWO discs that went missing, this is not an everyday situation, two discs - big deal. Errors can always occur - again Im just not paranoid enough to worry about it. In the scheme of things there is always potential for ANY private information to become public. Im in my 30's, I have had bank accounts since my teens, to date Ive not had a problem with my bank data getting into the wrong hands, or any other data belonging to me - its not a frequent enough event for me to spend time worrying about.



diarmuidc said:


> Yes that's the problem. If we decide to use fingerprints to identify people, then what happens when people start forging fingerprints? How do you modified your compromised fingerprint?


 
If people start forging fingerprints and it becomes a big enough issue then no doubt technology will look for another way to identify people. As it stands fingerprinting is not to replace carrying a passport, just to back it up. Really - I do not see the big deal.


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> What has this got to do with anything? Merely drags the debate off topic. But if it satisfies you I am not one of the conspiracy people regarding 9/11. I love my freedom. And I don't want any busybodies, goons, cranks or idiots trying to take pieces of it away - ****ing down my back and telling me it's raining!


 
fair enough.

The reason I asked is because a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists would all concur with you about the freedom thing and how in time, we will have no freedom left. 

A lot of the 9/11 conpiracy theorists believe that 9/11 was done deliberately as an inside job and has played a major part in that process of taking peoples freedom away.


----------



## Ash 22 (30 Jul 2008)

Graham_07 said:


> How do you get jobs there ?
> 
> I presume by going through that scanner too !!!


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Flying is becoming a real pain these days!


Absolutely agree with that. Qwertyuiop do ye not think that we have less freedom these days? I certainly do - it's almost like ye need to prove these days that you haven't done anything wrong rather than the opposite!


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> The reason I asked is because a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists would all concur with you about the freedom thing and how in time, we will have no freedom left.


You don't have to be a '9/11 conspiracy theorist' to think this way. Is this a new label for people who worry about the erosion of their freedom?


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> You don't have to be a '9/11 conspiracy theorist' to think this way. Is this a new label for people who worry about the erosion of their freedom?


 
I'm not saying that you have to be a 9/11 cospiracy theorist to think this way.

What i said was that most 9/11 conspiract theorists do think this way.

But that obviously doesn't mean most people who think this way is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Hence the question - so we would find out.

And the question has been answered.

Really was no more to it than that.


----------



## Teabag (30 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> Absolutely agree with that. Qwertyuiop do ye not think that we have less freedom these days? I certainly do - it's almost like ye need to prove these days that you haven't done anything wrong rather than the opposite!



Do you think we have less freedom nowadays ?

I dont believe I have less 'freedom' day-to-day in Ireland than I had say 10/20 years ago. 
Before that, I was a teenager and got away with murder !
I have the freedom to stand naked in the rain in a field full of thistles and that makes me happy...


----------



## diarmuidc (30 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> My fingerprint is only as open to forgery as my passport or anything else.


You can get a new passport. You can't get new fingerprints.



> This link talks about TWO, yes TWO discs that went missing, this is not an everyday situation, two discs - big deal.


It's a huge deal. Once that info is out it's out. It's easily replicated data that can be copied infinitely without deterioration . Look at what happens when mp3's of a new album gets leaked, (and it only takes[broken link removed]). It's all over the internet in a day. 
So someone gets their hands on those CDs in a few month/years you have details of every person with a kid under 16 in the UK up on the Pirate Bay, USENET, whereever. No big deal? Really?



> Im in my 30's, I have had bank accounts since my teens, to date Ive not had a problem with my bank data getting into the wrong hands, or any other data belonging to me - its not a frequent enough event for me to spend time worrying about.


I'm fine Jack. You haven't been killed in a car crash either, so I guess that's not a problem either. 



> I do not see the big deal.


You're not looking hard enough.


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Jul 2008)

Teabag said:


> Do you think we have less freedom nowadays ?
> 
> I dont believe I have less 'freedom' day-to-day in Ireland than I had say 10/20 years ago.
> Before that, I was a teenager and got away with murder !
> I have the freedom to stand naked in the rain in a field full of thistles and that makes me happy...



10/20 years ago you could breeze through an airport on your way to the boarding gate - nowadays you have to remove yer shoes and belt enroute ... you're not allowed to bring large bottles of drink on with you ... your bags can be emptied and searched and regularly are ... and now at the far side you're also subjected to further checks ... you telling me this isn't an intrusion on our liberties? Sure there is argument put forward that this is all needed to prevent the "baddies" blowing us all up but I don't buy into that meself.


----------



## diarmuidc (30 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> you're not allowed to bring large bottles of drink on with you


This has got to be the best one ever. 
If you ever need proof that people can be treated like sheep, it's convincing them that pouring their 300 ml of shampoo into 3x100ml bottles is making them safer. (of course once you are past security you can buy a bottle and re-constitute the 300ml)


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> I have the freedom to stand naked in the rain in a field full of thistles and that makes me happy...


I would doubt it. Try it and let us know what happens, especially if someone sees you.


----------



## Teabag (30 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> 10/20 years ago you could breeze through an airport on your way to the boarding gate - nowadays you have to remove yer shoes and belt enroute ... you're not allowed to bring large bottles of drink on with you ... your bags can be emptied and searched and regularly are ... and now at the far side you're also subjected to further checks ... you telling me this isn't an intrusion on our liberties? Sure there is argument put forward that this is all needed to prevent the "baddies" blowing us all up but I don't buy into that meself.



I said day-to-day in Ireland. That does not mean international travel. I agree that air travel has become a pain the ass but 10/20 years ago, loonies weren't flying airlines into skyscrapers.


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> 10/20 years ago you could breeze through an airport on your way to the boarding gate - nowadays you have to remove yer shoes and belt enroute ... you're not allowed to bring large bottles of drink on with you ... your bags can be emptied and searched and regularly are ... and now at the far side you're also subjected to further checks ... you telling me this isn't an intrusion on our liberties? Sure there is argument put forward that this is all needed to prevent the "baddies" blowing us all up but I don't buy into that meself.


 
ya - you have to take off your shoes?

So what ?
There was a shoe-bomber in teh past.

If they didn't start checking peoples shoes given teh shoe-bomber episode and another shoe-bomber blew up a plane we'd all be giving out stink.
It seems to be a lose-lose situation all round for the authroities.

soemone asked the question do i feel i have less liberties today?
The answer is 99.99% of teh time i am not inconvenienced by any of these checks.

Like - what percentage of my life am i lining up to get on a plane?
a very tiny amount.

Out of curiosity - what security checks do you consider appropriate?

personal;ly i think it's people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

All this talk of "this is just the start of it" is all the scare-mongers out there trying to put the frights up everyone.

I say get over it - in your normal everyday activity it has next to zero impact in your life.

And as for airport checks, personally I am pro them given the peace of mind it affords me.
It adds maybe 10-15 mins max to my travelling experience.

So what!
Big deal !

I can deal with that just fine.


----------



## Teabag (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> I would doubt it. Try it and let us know what happens, especially if someone sees you.




I do it regularly. In private of course (I hope...or do I ?). 
I would probably get a worse reaction in 1988 if somebody saw me than if I was spotted in 2008. Hence, more freedom now I suppose.


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> If you ever need proof that people can be treated like sheep, it's convincing them that pouring their 300 ml of shampoo into 3x100ml bottles is making them safer. (of course once you are past security you can buy a bottle and re-constitute the 300ml)


In Edinburgh Airport we had someone wave a 'special stick' of a small cosmetics container to make sure is wasn't explosive. Amazing that they can check every explosive substance or pre-cursor known to man by using a simple stick. 

We were also under constant surveillance everytime we left our hotel room by the ubiquitous CCTV. Train stations were especially scary. At one small station I noticed at least 15 CCTV cameras!

I also heard the story that the airline staff are subjected to the same rigorous 'security'. They stopped a pilot going through with a bottle of contact lens solution... hmm.


----------



## Teabag (30 Jul 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> personal;ly i think it's people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
> 
> All this talk of "this is just the start of it" is all the scare-mongers out there trying to put the frights up everyone.
> 
> I say get over it - in your normal everyday activity it has next to zero impact in your



I agree. Most of this scare-mongering and conspiracy stuff is Hollywood driven too.


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Jul 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> ya - you have to take off your shoes?
> 
> So what ?
> There was a shoe-bomber in teh past.
> ...



1 shoe bomber and we're all in a flap ... what about the London bombers - bombs in bags on a bus - so should we all be subject to inspection of our bags when boarding a bus? Likewise on trains. Why the different rules - are all terrorists more likely to board an airplane? Have ye peace of mind sitting on a bus or train? If so did ye stop to wonder why that is ... maybe yer not scared into thinking the same threat exists on these?


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> ya - you have to take off your shoes?
> 
> So what ?
> There was a shoe-bomber in teh past.


Taking your shoes off is a farce.
1. You don't _always_ have to take your shoes off - different airports have different standards and rules.
2. By your logic (that it happened in the past) what security precautions have they implemented on London Underground?
3. There are infinite more methods of downing a plane, which would pass current security.

[Post crossed with above]


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Jul 2008)

Teabag said:


> I agree. Most of this scare-mongering and conspiracy stuff is Hollywood driven too.



It's those advocating these extra checks that are running scared in my book - me personally I'm not afraid to get on a plane and would happily do so without all these extra security checks - it's the bloody hassle of it that puts me off these days! The scare-mongering is those that think we need all these security checks to keep us nice and safe from the bad guys cause it's such a bad dangerous world out there! Yer much more likely to be attacked by a mob of drunk teenagers than to be blown up by some suicide bomber so should we all be afraid to walk down the street?


----------



## truthseeker (30 Jul 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> You can get a new passport. You can't get new fingerprints.


Which is why its highly unlikely that your fingerprints will ever be used alone as an ID check. 



diarmuidc said:


> It's a huge deal. Once that info is out it's out. It's easily replicated data that can be copied infinitely without deterioration . Look at what happens when mp3's of a new album gets leaked, (and it only takes one CD to get in the wrong hands). It's all over the internet in a day.
> So someone gets their hands on those CDs in a few month/years you have details of every person with a kid under 16 in the UK up on the Pirate Bay, USENET, whereever. No big deal? Really?


 
But so what? Peoples details change with time. Its just plain paranoia to worry about data that is 10 years old showing up somewhere.



diarmuidc said:


> I'm fine Jack. You haven't been killed in a car crash either, so I guess that's not a problem either.


 
You missed the point of that entirely - what I meant is that statistically its unlikely my details will get into the wrong hands, nothing to do with Im fine Jack. Obviously there is a need to protect data - but lets not start losing our hair if the odd mistake happens. Data can be changed. You can get new details.



diarmuidc said:


> You're not looking hard enough.


 
The article you have linked to has nothing to do with an individuals identity or theft of it.

Clearly you have a sense of paranoia about Big Brother, your data being copied indefinitely, your identity being stolen, your DNA being used to make clones of yourself or something. I dont.
Im not that important in the scheme of things, I just get on with my life and the issues that occupy my mind are not 'what is the government or someone else going to do with my identity details' - seriously, theres more to life than worrying about things like that.


----------



## Teabag (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> 2. By your logic (that it happened in the past) what security precautions have they implemented on London Underground?
> 
> [Post crossed with above]



When the IRA were murdering people in the UK, they removed all rubbish bins from the Tube and added a huge amount of surveillance cameras. The Tube was regularly shut down in the 80s/90s due to suspect packages spotted on camera. I can imagine it would be extremely difficult to make the security as tight as an airport to deter suicide bombers but it may happen some day.


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> Why the different rules - are all terrorists more likely to board an airplane?


 
Well a plane as displayed on 9/11 can certainly be used to far better effect for causing destruction than say a bus on 7/7.
That would probably be one reason why there are more security checks in getting ona plane.

Answer me this Ceist Beag - in your regular day to day activity are you in any way less free than you were,say, 10 years ago?

Like- is all this huffing and puffing by you seriously because you have to queue up for 15 minutes exta at the airport ?

because if it is, then i'd hate to meet you when you have a proper problem to grumble about.


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> But so what? Peoples details change with time. Its just plain paranoia to worry about data that is 10 years old showing up somewhere.


DNA and fingerprints don't change over time.


----------



## truthseeker (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> DNA and fingerprints don't change over time.


which is why, for the third time, it is highly unlikely that either would be used as a stand alone ID check.


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> It's those advocating these extra checks that are running scared in my book - me personally I'm not afraid to get on a plane and would happily do so without all these extra security checks - it's the bloody hassle of it that puts me off these days! The scare-mongering is those that think we need all these security checks to keep us nice and safe from the bad guys cause it's such a bad dangerous world out there! Yer much more likely to be attacked by a mob of drunk teenagers than to be blown up by some suicide bomber so should we all be afraid to walk down the street?


 
Ceist beag - you are seriously not seeing teh big picture here.

presumably teh whole point of the security measures is 
a) to prevent some attack from occurring
b) to deter any potential attacks.

i.e. i presume it primarily serves as a deterrent as opposed to a prevention.

And it is because of these checks that make it far less likely you will be blown up in a plane.

If these checks didn't occur, the likelihood of beiung blown up in a plane would be far greater,albeit still very slim.


----------



## MrMan (30 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> In Edinburgh Airport we had someone wave a 'special stick' of a small cosmetics container to make sure is wasn't explosive. Amazing that they can check every explosive substance or pre-cursor known to man by using a simple stick.
> 
> We were also under constant surveillance everytime we left our hotel room by the ubiquitous CCTV. Train stations were especially scary. At one small station I noticed at least 15 CCTV cameras!
> 
> I also heard the story that the airline staff are subjected to the same rigorous 'security'. They stopped a pilot going through with a bottle of contact lens solution... hmm.



Not sure if your being serious here ' we were under constant surveillance everytime we left our hotel room' I mean either you are a dangerous man or have a great sense of self importance. CCTV camera are there as security, maybe if people stopped vandalising property, committing crimes, putting in dodgy claims etc then there would be far less of a need for security cameras.


----------



## DublinTexas (30 Jul 2008)

I think most of regular travelers agree that the current airport security for passengers are mostly window dressing and driven by polictics rather than real security needs. But that is a different story.

I have nothing against legit usage of my biometric data by the goverment (my current passport has not only my digital picture but also 2 finger prints in it) where it makes sense.

Example:
Iris Scanner in the UK to pass through immigration in 60 seconds rather than being trapped in a long queue.
Fingerprinting to speed up the immigration in the US on the new automated check points rather than queing to talk to immigration.
Registered traveler program to speed up airport security checks so that you don't have to stand behind the crowed who never flow before and does not know what 100ml is.

But I am absolutly against using fingerprints just because a private company like BAA decides that their shopping center needs more revenue and hence they force all domestic passengers to get finger printed. While they claim that nobody has access to the system and they delete the data within 24 hours, I don't trust a company that can't run an airport correctly.

Let's face it, these days most of our privacy is gone anyhow and the goverment knows more about me than 5 years ago, but it's not all bad.

My biometric passports makes it easier for me to move arround, the fact that biometrics are used in immigration makes it faster to pass.

I'm willing to give up some of my privacy if it is good for me and it's done with my consent, but just so that BAA can route me via their useless shops, please....


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> When the IRA were murdering people in the UK, they removed all rubbish bins from the Tube and added a huge amount of surveillance cameras. The Tube was regularly shut down in the 80s/90s due to suspect packages spotted on camera. I can imagine it would be extremely difficult to make the security as tight as an airport to deter suicide bombers but it may happen some day.


How will it happen?
Even with all that security, the IRA still managed to do this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Docklands_bombing
Which cost the UK Government a fortune. In other words, by putting security somewhere, and all you are doing is moving the problem. 

The thing that did seem to stop the IRA military campaign was the peace process.



> Well a plane as displayed on 9/11 can certainly be used to far better effect for causing destruction than say a bus on 7/7.
> That would probably be one reason why there are more security checks in getting ona plane.


How about bombing the London Underground under the Thames, and flooding a huge portion of it?


----------



## z106 (30 Jul 2008)

DublinTexas said:


> I'm willing to give up some of my privacy if it is good for me and it's done with my consent, but just so that BAA can route me via their useless shops, please....


 
You seem pretty sure there DublinTexas that it is all about getting people to shop more.

What are you basing your convictions on?


----------



## z103 (30 Jul 2008)

> Not sure if your being serious here ' we were under constant surveillance everytime we left our hotel room' I mean either you are a dangerous man or have a great sense of self importance. CCTV camera are there as security, maybe if people stopped vandalising property, committing crimes, putting in dodgy claims etc then there would be far less of a need for security cameras.


So Scotland is the safest place in the world then is it?



> _DNA and fingerprints don't change over time._
> which is why, for the third time, it is highly unlikely that either would be used as a stand alone ID check.


They are though, aren't they? - I'm pretty sure fingerprints are used as a stand alone ID check for timekeeping systems etc, and DNA has often been used by courts to identify people.


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Jul 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> Answer me this Ceist Beag - in your regular day to day activity are you in any way less free than you were,say, 10 years ago?
> 
> Like- is all this huffing and puffing by you seriously because you have to queue up for 15 minutes exta at the airport ?
> 
> because if it is, then i'd hate to meet you when you have a proper problem to grumble about.


No need to get personal qwerty! You don't think it's hassle at airports these days, I do - we don't agree, as ye say yerself big deal, so what? Do ye think by getting personal you'll change my mind? I don't believe I'm grumbling here either - merely making my point.



qwertyuiop said:


> And it is because of these checks that make it far less likely you will be blown up in a plane.
> 
> If these checks didn't occur, the likelihood of beiung blown up in a plane would be far greater,albeit still very slim.


My point is I don't fear being blown up on a plane - 9/11 has no impact on my personal opinion on the safety of flying - if I was to believe all these security checks are necessary I'd imagine I'd be a bit of a nervous wreck! I think it's all just window dressing to make it look like they're doing something to make us all feel nice and safe.


----------



## DublinTexas (30 Jul 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> You seem pretty sure there DublinTexas that it is all about getting people to shop more.
> 
> What are you basing your convictions on?


 
Have you been to T1 in London recently?

Previously flights to Ireland/Domestic were screened on the left side with normal security, now the new revamped depature process merges domestic and international passengers through the same screening (with domestic passengers having their picture taken).

You than walk through the shopping area for a good while until you reach the next security checkpoint where they check your picture against your boardingpass and you enter the same area that previously was the domestic area.

Now what is the reason for that? The reason is that BAA wants to use one depature hall for both international and domestic. It's not that the goverment told them to use one hall, it's BAA's decision. 

As a later step it's than envisoned to remove the 2nd checkpoint and mix all the gates with finger prints checked at the gate.

Again a decision of BAA not the goverment. The goverment told them they need to ensure that people which have not cleared immigration should not be allowed on domestic flights and BAA has choosen fingerprints, not the goverment. 




			
				Ceist Beag said:
			
		

> My point is I don't fear being blown up on a plane - 9/11 has no impact on my personal opinion on the safety of flying - if I was to believe all these security checks are necessary I'd imagine I'd be a bit of a nervous wreck! I think it's all just window dressing to make it look like they're doing something to make us all feel nice and safe.


 
I fully agree with this, I still fly DESPITE the hassle at airports!


----------



## diarmuidc (30 Jul 2008)

> Which is why its highly unlikely that your fingerprints will ever be used alone as an ID check.


So why use it at all is the obvious question?



truthseeker said:


> But so what? Peoples details change with time. Its just plain paranoia to worry about data that is 10 years old showing up somewhere.


aaargh!!! That's the whole point. If your fingerprints are compromised you can't change them. Incidental does your social security and bank account details change regularly? Because that was part of the compromised details



> You missed the point of that entirely - what I meant is that statistically its unlikely my details will get into the wrong hands, nothing to do with Im fine Jack.


So what are the chances of your details getting into the wrong hand? It's not just the government's data that is being compromised. It's already costing the UK economy [broken link removed]




> Clearly you have a sense of paranoia ,


Wait a sec. You are supporting the measures being enforced at airports (such as removing your shoes, taking you belt off, moving you shampoo to 100ml jars, bringing you hair gel in 50ml containers, taking fingerprints, and I guess wouldn't have problems taking photos, etc..) to prevent against what? Something like 1 in 18 million chance of being on a flight that gets hijacked.

Who here is paranoid?


----------



## Ash 22 (30 Jul 2008)

I have the freedom to stand naked in the rain in a field full of thistles and that makes me happy...[/quote]


Was that you I saw yesterday Teabag?!


----------



## Teabag (31 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> I have the freedom to stand naked in the rain in a field full of thistles and that makes me happy...
> 
> 
> Was that you I saw yesterday Teabag?!




Probably not Ash22, was at the Galway races yesterday. Not a great spot for it, no thistles.


----------



## MrMan (31 Jul 2008)

> So Scotland is the safest place in the world then is it?


Do you want to expand on your vague reply?




> Wait a sec. You are supporting the measures being enforced at airports (such as removing your shoes, taking you belt off, moving you shampoo to 100ml jars, bringing you hair gel in 50ml containers, taking fingerprints, and I guess wouldn't have problems taking photos, etc..) to prevent against what? Something like 1 in 18 million chance of being on a flight that gets hijacked.
> 
> Who here is paranoid?



I think rather than say she was paranoid and supporting the measures I think truthseeker like a lot of us would say 'i'm not overly concerned about the measures and I wouldn't let such a small detail impact on my freedom to travel'.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> So why use it at all is the obvious question?


 
Because right now as a deterrant to criminals travelling under false identities it works.



diarmuidc said:


> aaargh!!! That's the whole point. If your fingerprints are compromised you can't change them. Incidental does your social security and bank account details change regularly? Because that was part of the compromised details


 
No - but as they wont be used alone then what difference does it make?
If your other data is compromised you CAN change it if necessary. 



diarmuidc said:


> So what are the chances of your details getting into the wrong hand? It's not just the government's data that is being compromised. It's already costing the UK economy stg1.7billion


 
I dont live in the UK. 



diarmuidc said:


> Wait a sec. You are supporting the measures being enforced at airports (such as removing your shoes, taking you belt off, moving you shampoo to 100ml jars, bringing you hair gel in 50ml containers, taking fingerprints, and I guess wouldn't have problems taking photos, etc..) to prevent against what? Something like 1 in 18 million chance of being on a flight that gets hijacked.
> 
> Who here is paranoid?


 
Where did I state I supported these measures? I simply said I was unconcerned about it. 
Throwing out statistics and quoting worst case scenarios is not going to change my mind on that. If I want to travel and the airport I want to use wants to fingerprint me - then I do not care. I dont worry about how much data protection costs the UK economy, I dont worry about the fact my biometric data cannot be changed and what if it gets into the wrong hands, I never mentioned anything about shampoo in small bottles, removing my shoes or belt or anything else. Simply as a response to the original post I stated I dont care if I am fingerprinted at an airport - so what if I am? I dont suffer from enough paranoia to worry about it.


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Simply as a response to the original post I stated I dont care if I am fingerprinted at an airport - so what if I am? I dont suffer from enough paranoia to worry about it.


Paranoia is mentioned a fair bit in posts above, but perhaps people aren't too worried about loosing elements of their freedom? People have always been willing to give up freedom for the illusion of security. Humans are quite partial to order and the notion of controlling their own destiny. 
From a personal standpoint, I don't like any erosion of my freedom, unless it is accompanied by a damn good reason, and done by people that I trust. 
On the matter of the inconvenience of all these checks- the sooner I can afford my own plane the better!


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Paranoia is mentioned a fair bit in posts above, but perhaps people aren't too worried about loosing elements of their freedom? People have always been willing to give up freedom for the illusion of security. Humans are quite partial to order and the notion of controlling their own destiny.
> From a personal standpoint, I don't like any erosion of my freedom, unless it is accompanied by a damn good reason, and done by people that I trust.
> On the matter of the inconvenience of all these checks- the sooner I can afford my own plane the better!


 
How does it take away from your freedom to submit to being fingerprinted at an airport?


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> How does it take away from your freedom to submit to being fingerprinted at an airport?


You could just as easily argue as to how it takes away from your freedom when governments gather large amounts of data about you and allow private companies the use of that data. 

Do you believe it would take away from your freedom if your DNA was stored on file (by any agency)?


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> You could just as easily argue as to how it takes away from your freedom when governments gather large amounts of data about you and allow private companies the use of that data.
> 
> Do you believe it would take away from your freedom if your DNA was stored on file (by any agency)?


 
I suppose it depends on how you define freedom. How do you define it?


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I suppose it depends on how you define freedom. How do you define it?



That is an interesting point to raise when dealing with the topic in question. I guess when considering the issue we should do well to consider all our positions in this regard. When attempting to win a debate we can talk around in circles while mentioning and referring to nothing at all, or we can ask our opponent a continuing stream of questions in order to avoid stating our own position on the matter, perhaps with the hope that they will undermine their position with their answer.  
How do you define freedom?


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

Might I suggest that instead of asking for definitions which philosophers have been unable to agree on for millenia we'd be better to stick with the fingerprinting matter. Some are happy to give them. Some are happy to give anything which they are asked for. Some have a high tolerance for being poorly treated. This is how regimes like North Korea survive. If all people desired freedom and were willing to stand up for it, then they could not be kept down. In reality it will always be up to the few to make a stand, and the majority to make excuses.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> That is an interesting point to raise when dealing with the topic in question. I guess when considering the issue we should do well to consider all our positions in this regard. When attempting to win a debate we can talk around in circles while mentioning and referring to nothing at all, or we can ask our opponent a continuing stream of questions in order to avoid stating our own position on the matter, perhaps with the hope that they will undermine their position with their answer.
> How do you define freedom?


 
Judging by that response you find the notion of freedom a sore point. A definition would have sufficed.

Im just not into 'spreading the infection', scaremongering and getting everyone all riled up with paranoid fantasies about nothing.


----------



## MrMan (31 Jul 2008)

You can make your stand and we will sheepishly go about our business being treated like animals having to wait 15mins at airports and having to identify ourselves and other invasive horrors but at least we can go to new york! i won't be making excuses either because I'm still not exactly sure of what I'm supposed to be making excuses for?


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> You can make your stand and we will sheepishly go about our business being treated like animals having to wait 15mins at airports and having to identify ourselves and other invasive horrors but at least we can go to new york! i won't be making excuses either because I'm still not exactly sure of what I'm supposed to be making excuses for?


 
MrMan I totally agree with that last bit - Im quite confused about all this upset at loss of freedom etc... I just cannot see how my freedom is being compromised by me giving my fingerprint in an airport. But when I ask anyone they just get all riled up and seem to think Im somehow trying to subversively debate them round in circles. Bizarre!


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> MrMan I totally agree with that last bit - Im quite confused about all this upset at loss of freedom etc... I just cannot see how my freedom is being compromised by me giving my fingerprint in an airport. But when I ask anyone they just get all riled up and seem to think Im somehow trying to subversively debate them round in circles. Bizarre!


Fair enough - in order to prove that you are not trying to debate round in circles, what is your definition of freedom? That will give us a place to start!


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> You can make your stand and we will sheepishly go about our business being treated like animals having to wait 15mins at airports and having to identify ourselves and other invasive horrors but at least we can go to new york! i won't be making excuses either because I'm still not exactly sure of what I'm supposed to be making excuses for?


The stand comes early or late - fingerprints may or may not be a big deal. But if you don't take a stand at the start, how far do you allow these 'security' measures to go? Perhaps a short interrogation at the airport if you fit a certain description? Perhaps denial of permission to fly. 

And with fingerprints, would you be happy to be questioned if your fingerprints brought you under suspicion? Or would you feel more justification was needed than fingerprints alone? 

If we don't question these measures then they will be brought in with no thought and no safeguards. We must question these things in order to prove how vital they are. Or aren't. but by not questioning we are complacent. 

As for excuses, they are the excuses for doing nothing (complacency), which I level at nobody here as people here are at least engaging on the subject.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Fair enough - in order to prove that you are not trying to debate round in circles, what is your definition of freedom?


 
I dont have a simple answer on that one - im not trying to be smart with you - I genuinely dont.

I guess if I am free to make my own decisions, free to do what I want to do with my life (within the realm of being a law abiding citizen), not to be oppressed because of my race, religion, gender, or political beliefs, allowed to express any opinion I have no matter how unpopular it is, if Im free to go where I want in the world (again within the realm of being sensible and not insisting that I have the right to enter a war torn region where I could cause more problems), then I would consider myself free. Also the freedom to have access to education, free to make up my own mind about what should and should not be censored from me.
Im sure there is more if I had a good think about it.
Its not something that IS easy to define.

Why do you think being fingerprinted at an airport infringes on your freedom?


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> The stand comes early or late - fingerprints may or may not be a big deal. But if you don't take a stand at the start, how far do you allow these 'security' measures to go? Perhaps a short interrogation at the airport if you fit a certain description? Perhaps denial of permission to fly.


 
But why do you even think things would go 'further' - thats where Im lost?



shnaek said:


> And with fingerprints, would you be happy to be questioned if your fingerprints brought you under suspicion? Or would you feel more justification was needed than fingerprints alone?


 
Id be happy to be questioned. If it turned out my fingerprints were forged Im sure it would be discovered easily enough.



shnaek said:


> If we don't question these measures then they will be brought in with no thought and no safeguards. We must question these things in order to prove how vital they are. Or aren't. but by not questioning we are complacent.


 
Perhaps I have questioned it and not found anything to worry about?


----------



## z103 (31 Jul 2008)

Will a wikipedia definition do? There are many types of freedom. Here's the definition of political freedom;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)


> *Political freedom* is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. The members of a free society would have full dominion over their public and private lives. The opposite of a free society would be a totalitarian state, which highly restricts political freedom in order to regulate almost every aspect of behavior. In this sense ‘freedom’ refers solely to the relation of men to other men, and the only infringement on it is coercion by men


According to that, not allowing my to travel without taking my fingerprints certainly reduces my freedom. I no longer have full domination over my public and private life. In other words, taking fingerprints at airports brings us one step closer to a totalitarian state.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> Will a wikipedia definition do? There are many types of freedom. Here's the definition of political freedom;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)
> 
> According to that, not allowing my to travel without taking my fingerprints certainly reduces my freedom. I no longer have full domination over my public and private life. In other words, taking fingerprints at airports brings us one step closer to a totalitarian state.


 
How on earth do you get that from that definition? No one is INTERFERING with your public or private life, theyre just looking at a bit of you!


----------



## z103 (31 Jul 2008)

> No one is INTERFERING with your public or private life, theyre just looking at a bit of you!


My fingerprints comprise part of my private life, just as my DNA, details of my medical history and pictures of my genitals also do.
They aren't just 'looking' at my fingerprints, they are storing them.


----------



## Ceist Beag (31 Jul 2008)

Guys/Gals I find myself agreeing with some of both sides but one thing bugs me about this - does anyone honestly believe this will make flying safer? Do ye honestly believe that anyone wishing to go and blow up a plane full of people, knowing that fingerprinting is in place, would be caught out by this? I'm no expert but I'm sure someone devious and clever enough to mastermind something like 9/11 would find a way around these things. Meanwhile the rest of us would have yet one more thing to do to satisfy those in authority that we're one of the good guys as we go on our journey - no matter how intrusive or not you think it might be.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> My fingerprints comprise part of my private life, just as my DNA, details of my medical history and pictures of my genitals also do.
> They aren't just 'looking' at my fingerprints, they are storing them.


 
But by the definition you used, storing them does not constitute regulating your behaviour.


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> But why do you even think things would go 'further' - thats where Im lost?


Up until now criminals were fingerprinted. Now we are talking about the travelling public being fingerprinted. Are we then to move on to everyone being fingerprinted? Thus are we all to be treated like criminals? 

Quick question - what is your stance on civil liberties? To me they are a part of the freedom we all enjoy. And fair play on trying to define it because freedom is certainly a difficult thing to define, and a difficult thing to achieve. It's not something to give up lightly.



truthseeker said:


> Id be happy to be questioned. If it turned out my fingerprints were forged Im sure it would be discovered easily enough.


I'm sure the Birmigham 6 thought the same!


And Ceist Beag - I believe it won't make flying safer. It's already the safest way to travel!


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Up until now criminals were fingerprinted. Now we are talking about the travelling public being fingerprinted. Are we then to move on to everyone being fingerprinted? Thus are we all to be treated like criminals?


 
Criminals are given a warm bed, 3 meals a day and hot water for showers. If we give that to someone in a hotel are we treating them like criminals? I dont think taking someones fingerprints constitutes treating them like a criminal. I think the comparison you made above is quite narrow, you could take any aspect of how a criminal is treated and find that actually most ordinary people are treated the same way - what makes it different is that they are locked in cells in prisons. But no one here has suggested that the general public are to be locked up in that way.



shnaek said:


> Quick question - what is your stance on civil liberties? To me they are a part of the freedom we all enjoy.


 
Yes - they are a part of the freedom we all enjoy (within the law of the land in which we live of course) - can you be more specific in your question, I dont have a general 'stance' as such but will answer any specific question. 



shnaek said:


> And fair play on trying to define it because freedom is certainly a difficult thing to define, and a difficult thing to achieve. It's not something to give up lightly.


 
Well i did not want to just google a definition because you asked me what I thought - not what definition I could find online. It IS difficult to define, one aspect is that I dont see any area in this discussion (about fingerprinting at airports) where my own personal freedom is being compromised. I can still travel through an airport. 




shnaek said:


> I'm sure the Birmigham 6 thought the same!


 
That case was an exception rather than the rule AND their convictions were overturned later so in fact justice did win through. I agree it wouldnt have been nice for the 6 - but it is not something that is happening to members of the general public every day of the week.


----------



## DublinTexas (31 Jul 2008)

A very nice discussion but let’s see this again, Fingerprinting at the airport is not done as a security measurement to stop terrorist or criminals from entering the “secure” area, it is done as a way of identifying that a person who entered the “secure area” with a domestic boarding pass.

The fingerprint is an identification mark here that is only stored on BAA’s system and not shared with anybody else and deleted within 24 hours after the flight is leaving.

*At least that is the current status. *

Now again the reason why identification is needed is because of the common BAA departure lounge used for domestic and international flights. I personally suspect it’s just so that BAA can route us through the shopping center, but that is my opinion.

I do not think that taking the finger print or picture of a person traveling domestic is a good signal just because they want us to use a common lounge, other ways, i.e. separate domestic gates are more useful.

It’s nothing to do with the window dressing security effort to stop terrorist from taking control of a plane, it is to stop illegal immigration. 
The measurement is done so that Person A cannot print himself a domestic boarding pass, enter the “secure” area and then give his boarding pass to Person B who just arrived from a foreign country connecting to a foreign country and is now in possession of person A boarding pass while person A is entering (because he is here legal) the UK again. Person B would not have had a boarder control done in this example and hence enter the UK illegally. 

I think we should be clear on this it’s an immigration issue why fingerprints are used at UK airports.


----------



## z103 (31 Jul 2008)

> But by the definition you used, storing them does not constitute regulating your behaviour.


Well, yes they are.
For me to prevent this invasion of my privacy, I refuse to fly to the USA, or airports that take fingerprints. (See first post)
Of course we also have the issue of privacy laws and civil liberties etc.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> Well, yes they are.


 
How exactly?



leghorn said:


> For me to prevent this invasion of my privacy, I refuse to fly to the USA, or airports that take fingerprints. (See first post)


 
Yes I saw your first post and I thought this was pretty extreme. Of course you are indeed exercising your choice and if you feel youd rather not travel than be fingerprinted you have the freedom to make that decision.
But to me thats a bit like hiding out in the hills with a generator, off the grid, eating canned food, making feverish plans to build a nuclear fall out shelter and hide in it with loaded gun waiting for the apocalypse. I just dont see the point.



leghorn said:


> Of course we also have the issue of privacy laws and civil liberties etc.


 
What issues are those then?


----------



## MrMan (31 Jul 2008)

> And with fingerprints, would you be happy to be questioned if your fingerprints brought you under suspicion? Or would you feel more justification was needed than fingerprints alone?



What would i have to worry about really? That also raises the point that more crimes could be solved if we were all printed.


----------



## MrMan (31 Jul 2008)

Ceist Beag said:


> Guys/Gals I find myself agreeing with some of both sides but one thing bugs me about this - does anyone honestly believe this will make flying safer? Do ye honestly believe that anyone wishing to go and blow up a plane full of people, knowing that fingerprinting is in place, would be caught out by this? I'm no expert but I'm sure someone devious and clever enough to mastermind something like 9/11 would find a way around these things. Meanwhile the rest of us would have yet one more thing to do to satisfy those in authority that we're one of the good guys as we go on our journey - no matter how intrusive or not you think it might be.



It might not stop the masterminds, but it might at least stop the nutjobs and less cunning criminals. A lot of it is reactionary and the reason is because there would be an outcry of 'why aren't more stringent measures in place' if another attack happen like 9/11, either way I don't see how a simple procedure should be seen as the beginning of the end or the day we gave up our rights, it is possible to over-react to simple changes and i think not flying to avoid being finger printed is an over-reaction.


----------



## Ceist Beag (31 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> i think not flying to avoid being finger printed is an over-reaction.



Agree with that point.


----------



## Pique318 (31 Jul 2008)

It's funny but what I see here can basically be simplified thus:
"Shure it'll be grand, what do I have to worry about? I haven't done anything wrong" 
This is all well and good, but sensitive information pertaining to individuals is always in demand from those shadier individuals, for one reason or another.

As it is, I do not see fingerprinting having any tangible benefit apart from maybe illegal aliens/'undocumented' etc. Those are going to be the main ones to suffer (and rightly so, might I add).

However, I think that what is going to be the natural progression of this is DNA profiling. Now having a fingerprint on multiple databases is one thing, but how would you feel if/when the only way to travel between certain countries is on the condition that you submit to a DNA swab ? It may be alarmist, but then again, is it really that far-fetched ? I suppose it depends on who's the US president, as these kind of measures are most likely to be introduced by them.

I do see this as an erosion of civil liberties, in the sense that freedom of travel is dependent on the surrender of personal data that is not normally necessary to ensure security.

What's wrong with facial recognition ? That's already used afaik.


----------



## Sunny (31 Jul 2008)

Wasn't there a American lawyer arrested after the Madrid bombings based on fingerprint evidence that the FBI said was 100% positive until the Spanish authorities revealed another match and the FBI admitted that they were wrong. Think the guy spent a few weeks in jail. These things might not happen very often but in my opinion one case is one case too many. I don't think anyone has made a compelling argument for fingerprinting.


----------



## shnaek (31 Jul 2008)

Well put, Pique318. I suspect many people would say that storage of DNA isn't a problem either though.


----------



## Pique318 (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Well put, Pique318. I suspect many people would say that storage of DNA isn't a problem either though.



Probably not, yet I bet they wouldn't hand over their bank details as quickly.
What about your kids? Would you let them be swabbed/printed ?


----------



## MrMan (31 Jul 2008)

Pique318 said:


> Probably not, yet I bet they wouldn't hand over their bank details as quickly.
> What about your kids? Would you let them be swabbed/printed ?



there goes that leap again from identifying yourself by fingerprint to 'heres my bank details sir'.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

shnaek said:


> Well put, Pique318. I suspect many people would say that storage of DNA isn't a problem either though.



They (they being BB) possibly already have mine, Ive donated blood, Ive been in hospital. I suppose they could be cloning me as we speak. Wonder if my other me would take care of the mortgage repayments and bills?

On a more serious note - what might 'they' do with your DNA that you'd be worried about?


----------



## diarmuidc (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Because right now as a deterrant to criminals travelling under false identities it works.


 Really? Prove it.



> I dont live in the UK.


Yes and it could never happen here



> Throwing out statistics and quoting worst case scenarios is not going to change my mind on that.


Not interested in facts and figures? What will change your mind? Seeing it in your horoscope ? Have you priest or local TD tell you?


----------



## diarmuidc (31 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> That case was an exception rather than the rule AND their convictions were overturned later so in fact justice did win through..



Sixteen years later. Some justice. But who cares, they had a warm bed and 3 meals a day, sure it was like living in a hotel for 16 years


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Not interested in facts and figures? What will change your mind? Seeing it in your horoscope ? Have you priest or local TD tell you?



No. Nor would any reasonable person be interested in a bunch of googled links that are far removed from a real life situation when their own experiences tell them that they have nothing to worry about.

Ive said it before on this thread, Ive no interest in 'spreading the infection' and scaremongering about what might or might not happen if some unnamed person or agency gets a hold of your stored fingerprint. Its all a bunch of what if's.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Sixteen years later. Some justice. But who cares, they had a warm bed and 3 meals a day, sure it was like living in a hotel for 16 years



Again - you use the exception to the rule as though it was happening every single day to every single member of the public. Its not relevant in the bigger picture.


----------



## z103 (31 Jul 2008)

> Yes I saw your first post and I thought this was pretty extreme. Of course you are indeed exercising your choice and if you feel youd rather not travel than be fingerprinted you have the freedom to make that decision.
> But to me thats a bit like hiding out in the hills with a generator, off the grid, eating canned food, making feverish plans to build a nuclear fall out shelter and hide in it with loaded gun waiting for the apocalypse. I just dont see the point.


I regard it more like making a stand and trying to prevent erosion of my civil liberties. If everyone took the same stand, they'd have to rethink fingerprinting people.
If people protested against the absolute farce that is currently known as 'airport security' and refused to comply, we might also have some progress there too. Unfortunately, too many people are sheep, or do not consider their freedoms and civil liberties worth fighting for - or even worse, do not even realise what is happening!

Taking away freedom never happens all at once. People might notice that. Here's the way it could happen.

- People are upset about perceived crime. The bad stuff that is reported in media. The authorities install CCTV as a solution. A very convincing argument.

_ is there actually any evidence that CCTV reduces crime? Is the loss of privacy worth the perceived benefits? Why not just put CCTV in peoples homes and nip crime in the bud, after all much crime is committed in people's homes (where have I read that before...)_

- 9/11 happens. Travellers have biometric passports. This will increase security and stop undesirables from travelling and hijacking planes. Stupid rules about 100ml containers and removing shoes are introduced.

_ There are many ways to hijack planes that aren't addressed. Do hijackers care that their (soon to be destroyed) fingerprints have been taken? Other targets become more attractive, such as public transport etc)_

What happens in the future? - people accept the above. National DNA database (the UK already has one)? - tracking devices? - Bank accounts open for the Government to freely examine (stop the tax cheats, don't you know)? - sections of society becoming marginalised?

It really is a slippery slope.




> Again - you use the exception to the rule as though it was happening every single day to every single member of the public. Its not relevant in the bigger picture.


You might think differently if it was you this happened to.


----------



## truthseeker (31 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> It really is a slippery slope.



But a slippery slope to what exactly? None of the stuff you mention in your post scares me. Even if I had a tracking device on I dont think Id care - where do I go that anyone would care about tracking me to? Im not doing anything secret that Id mind anyone else knowing about. The sheep argument is always pulled out of the closet to encompass all who dont make a stand, but sometimes some of those 'sheep' have thought about the implications of things and genuinely are not bothered. I dont have anything to hide so it doesnt matter to me if people know what Im doing. They would want to be extremely bored to get a kick out of watching my life. 

I dont dispute the Birmingham 6 case was tragic for those involved, but people are quoting it here as though it happens to everyone and my point is that it doesnt. Im not saying it couldnt happen to someone, but its a total exception. Nothing is 100% failsafe, as margins of error go the number of people genuinely wrongly convicted in a population is probably vanishingly small.


----------



## Sunny (31 Jul 2008)

Might be of interest. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/race.italy


----------



## DavyJones (31 Jul 2008)

I spoke to an old lady once who belives in mad stuff like This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ will come again. She was telling me that the anti- Christ will rule the earth before we are saved again on judgement day. The anti-christ walks amongst us now according to this seemly sane women. Anyhow what I found very interesting is that when we are under the anti- christs rule we will be marked on our foreheads or  hand. A quick search found this [broken link removed]

When these things become compulsory, I'll be worried.


----------



## z103 (31 Jul 2008)

tbh, I posted this 





> sections of society becoming marginalised?


Expecting an outraged reponse of people thinking I was being over the top. However, I don't know what frightens me more, this;


> But a slippery slope to what exactly? None of the stuff you mention in your post scares me.


or this;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/27/race.italy


----------



## cole (1 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I spoke to an old lady once who belives in mad stuff like This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ will come again......


 
Many of us believe that Christ will come again...it's called Christianity.


----------



## Teabag (1 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I spoke to an old lady once who belives in mad stuff like This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ will come again. She was telling me that the anti- Christ will rule the earth before we are saved again on judgement day. The anti-christ walks amongst us now according to this seemly sane women. Anyhow what I found very interesting is that when we are under the anti- christs rule we will be marked on our foreheads or  hand. A quick search found this [broken link removed]
> 
> When these things become compulsory, I'll be worried.



I heard a story once that some guy was born of a virgin, was the son of God, died for our sins, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and is a better person than that Muhammed fella and is the true 'messiah'. I wonder what odds PaddyPower would give me on that being true....


----------



## truthseeker (1 Aug 2008)

leghorn said:


> tbh, I posted this
> Expecting an outraged reponse of people thinking I was being over the top.


 
So you were trolling then?

I would be inclined to think that despite media scaremongering on the issue its highly unlikely that this scheme will actually go ahead and if it does it wont have any negative effects for those involved. Is it not better for children who are not being sent to school to be identified and given a better chance?


----------



## MrMan (1 Aug 2008)

Seems to me that the 'sheep' in this case are actually the ones 'taking a stand'. When extreme ifs and buts are required to make an argument you begin to wonder are they just making this argument because they are afraid of change or because they simply want to look rebellious.


----------



## DublinTexas (1 Aug 2008)

I have lived in states where (at that time) it was mandatory for foreigners to register themselves with the alien police within days of arrival and the law requires to carry both foreign passport and residence permit at all times. Where it is mandatory if you pay by credit card over a certain amount you are forced to produce a document that shows your person number so that it can be scanned and compared to the person number on the credit card. Where you can't get cable TV without your person number and where the fine you get for speeding depends on last year’s income which the police can determine instantly by entering your person number into their handheld.


Did I like to live in that country.. Certainly.. Is it a fascist or an “orwell” state? No..


I as everybody else there accepted the benefits of no credit card fraud, healthy immigration, social benefits because benefit fraud was low and how wonderful the country otherwise is.


So where to draw the line is the question.


Most certainly the line is between private companies wanting to do something to generate more revenue or the state because it is for the common good and he at the same time guarantees the security of the individuals both that of the innocent and the once that are suspected for criminal activities.


Do I think that fingerprinting children of a minority is a good thing? Not really, however if they commit a crime than fingerprinting is good. So rather than fingerprinting them en bloc (and in a place like Italy, I thought they learned something) is out of the question, but if they show up in the system (i.e. they break the law) than it’s only fair.


----------



## truthseeker (1 Aug 2008)

Excellent post DublinTexas


----------



## cole (1 Aug 2008)

I think that the overall consensus is that fingerprinting at the airport will not reduce the terrorist threat significantly. Therefore, as originally posted, are there any objections?


----------



## Sunny (1 Aug 2008)

DublinTexas said:


> So where to draw the line is the question.
> 
> 
> Most certainly the line is between private companies wanting to do something to generate more revenue or the state because it is for the common good and he at the same time guarantees the security of the individuals both that of the innocent and the once that are suspected for criminal activities.


 
But where to you draw the line on the State being allowed to do things for the common good or for security. Everything could be justified under those headings.


----------



## MrMan (1 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> I think that the overall consensus is that fingerprinting at the airport will not reduce the terrorist threat significantly. Therefore, as originally posted, are there any objections?




Not from me anyway. If they use my details to profile where shoppers are going or who to target, I don't really care as it won't actually change how I shop etc. Maybe they can even use my details to make the experience all the more enjoyable for me who knows.


----------



## Pique318 (1 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> I think that the overall consensus is that fingerprinting at the airport will not reduce the terrorist threat significantly. Therefore, as originally posted, are there any objections?



I think that your first sentence is the main cause of objections. 
If it will not reduce the terrorist threat significantly (if at all), then why introduce it?

There are many such measures being considered in the wider spectrum. Some good (breath test to start a car) some not so good (limiting cars to 120kph).

The old chestnut that law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear is implying that if we have a problem with it, then we're liberal left-wing nuts who are either sympathisers at least and no better than the generic 'bad guys'. 
Also, as has been mentioned, those who are targeted by these systems are sufficiently dedicated/professional/crazy to be able to bypass it.


----------



## shnaek (1 Aug 2008)

Stealing business secrets, perhaps?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/01/us_customs_laptop_seizures/
As a entrepreneur with an unpatented project on a laptop heading to meet VC's, would you be happy to accept that US customs can look through your data? Would US entrepreneurs be happy if Europeans could search through their laptops?

And re fingerprints - around 1,000 deaths in the UK through terrorism over the last 30 years (not sure of the exact figure). Around 3,000 deaths PER YEAR on the roads. Why spend all that money on a fingerprint system which isn't going to do all that much to prevent terrorism? Even if you don't have a problem with fingerprinting, you got to ask why they are concentrating their efforts and money on it.


----------



## MrMan (1 Aug 2008)

shnaek said:


> Stealing business secrets, perhaps?
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/01/us_customs_laptop_seizures/
> As a entrepreneur with an unpatented project on a laptop heading to meet VC's, would you be happy to accept that US customs can look through your data? Would US entrepreneurs be happy if Europeans could search through their laptops?
> 
> And re fingerprints - around 1,000 deaths in the UK through terrorism over the last 30 years (not sure of the exact figure). Around 3,000 deaths PER YEAR on the roads. Why spend all that money on a fingerprint system which isn't going to do all that much to prevent terrorism? Even if you don't have a problem with fingerprinting, you got to ask why they are concentrating their efforts and money on it.




could the 1,000 deaths in 30 years suggest that without the measures in place that figure would be significantly higher therefore making them a worthwhile exercise.


----------



## shnaek (1 Aug 2008)

MrMan said:


> could the 1,000 deaths in 30 years suggest that without the measures in place that figure would be significantly higher therefore making them a worthwhile exercise.


We aren't talking about measures in place. We are talking about new measures. And also this argument doesn't hold true - it is the tiger/rock argument from the simpsons - I have this rock, and I haven't been attacked by a tiger. Therefor this rock prevents tiger attacks. So some could suggest that without the measures in place the figure could be higher, but there are no facts to back this up. Are we to go down a route of implementing policy without fact, or cost benefit analysis? We know how that goes here in Ireland, re. transport in particular!!


----------



## truthseeker (1 Aug 2008)

shnaek said:


> And re fingerprints - around 1,000 deaths in the UK through terrorism over the last 30 years (not sure of the exact figure). Around 3,000 deaths PER YEAR on the roads. Why spend all that money on a fingerprint system which isn't going to do all that much to prevent terrorism? Even if you don't have a problem with fingerprinting, you got to ask why they are concentrating their efforts and money on it.


 
Has it not already been stated earlier on this thread that the UK airport fingerprinting is not done as a security measurement to stop terrorist or criminals but in fact to prevent illegal immigration. So all the facts and figures to do with terrorism are irrelevant anyway.


----------



## Sunny (1 Aug 2008)

Reason given:

[broken link removed]


----------



## DublinTexas (1 Aug 2008)

And most importantly in that article:



> BAA, whose airports include Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, has argued that scanners are needed so that all passengers can shop in its huge terminal shopping malls.


 
A point I made very early in this discussion, it's not security here, it's BAA!


----------



## Pique318 (1 Aug 2008)

So you don't need money, just fingerprints ? Sweeet !


----------



## DavyJones (1 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> Many of us believe that Christ will come again...it's called Christianity.



Whatever floats your boat. Any idea when it will happen?


----------



## z103 (1 Aug 2008)

> *Originally Posted by DavyJones http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=680122#post680122
> I spoke to an old lady once who belives in mad stuff like This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ will come again......*
> Many of us believe that Christ will come again...it's called Christianity.


I thought this was hilarious!


----------



## Simeon (1 Aug 2008)

I thought it was suspension of logic


----------



## miselemeas (4 Aug 2008)

FYI Ten finger screening of fingerprints of visitors to the USA is to be introduced at all American entry and exit points in January 2009.

"Dept of Homeland Security .... would help avoid the large number of false readings that two finger screening had produced since it was introduced........ screening had detected 2,400 people trying to get in to the US with false passports over the past four years."


----------



## MrMan (5 Aug 2008)

shnaek said:


> We aren't talking about measures in place. We are talking about new measures. And also this argument doesn't hold true - it is the tiger/rock argument from the simpsons - I have this rock, and I haven't been attacked by a tiger. Therefor this rock prevents tiger attacks. So some could suggest that without the measures in place the figure could be higher, but there are no facts to back this up. Are we to go down a route of implementing policy without fact, or cost benefit analysis? We know how that goes here in Ireland, re. transport in particular!!




Well I bow down to the simpsons analysis, you have me there.


----------



## shnaek (5 Aug 2008)

MrMan said:


> Well I bow down to the simpsons analysis, you have me there.



As I often do myself 
Fact is, we cannot assume our benign democratic system of governance is going to be with us always. It is a relatively new construct, and we must be vigilant in our protection of it, and our protection of our own civil liberties. We don't have to go back too many decades to realise that greater civilizations than ours have fallen under totalitarian rule of some sort. When this happens, it usually happens pretty quickly. Not many would have predicted the dramatic fall in the ISEQ over the past 12-15 months. Governments can fall equally fast when 'events' occur.
Perhaps our democracy will last a thousand years. But if we fall under a totalitarian system it won't help those of us who would be free to fight against it if they have our fingerprints or DNA 
Seriously though, if government want fingerprinting it is up to them to prove how it keeps us secure. And it is up to them to prove that they will keep the data they have on their citizens secure. And it is up to us to make sure that they know we aren't fooled by spin, and we take our hard fought for rights seriously.


----------

