Fingerprinting at Airports - any objections?

[DublinTexas]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

So why use it at all is the obvious question?

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.