Fingerprinting at Airports - any objections?

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You might think differently if it was you this happened to.
 
leghorn said:
It really is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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......
Click to expand...

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

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....
 
leghorn said:
tbh, I posted this
Expecting an outraged reponse of people thinking I was being over the top.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register