A Clash Between Congressional Lawmakers
News0 min ago
Passengers at British airports to be fingerprinted
"The Home Office's Border and Immigration Agency has confirmed that it is considering forcing airport operators to introduce the measures to increase security.
BAA, which operates seven UK airports, is keen to see the arrangement extended as it allows all passengers access to airside shopping malls, including its own chain of World Duty Free stores.
The Home Office says since 2004, visitors to America have been fingerprint-scanned and digitally photographed on arrival.
The proposed amendments will require fingerprints to be taken when passengers pass through security into the airside terminal.
Each passenger would place a hand on a scanner, which records four fingerprints, then would face a camera and be photographed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/lawandorder/2463357/Passengers-at-Britis h-airports-to-be-fingerprinted.html
Isn't it reassuring that we will be fighting terrorism and able do do duty free shopping. Such freedoms are worth fighting for.
BAA, which operates seven UK airports, is keen to see the arrangement extended as it allows all passengers access to airside shopping malls, including its own chain of World Duty Free stores.
The Home Office says since 2004, visitors to America have been fingerprint-scanned and digitally photographed on arrival.
The proposed amendments will require fingerprints to be taken when passengers pass through security into the airside terminal.
Each passenger would place a hand on a scanner, which records four fingerprints, then would face a camera and be photographed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/lawandorder/2463357/Passengers-at-Britis h-airports-to-be-fingerprinted.html
Isn't it reassuring that we will be fighting terrorism and able do do duty free shopping. Such freedoms are worth fighting for.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If someone has skipped bail or has outstanding warrants then their passports would (or should) be 'marked'. If they go to the trouble of getting a fake passport, then they may as well fake their fingerprints: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1991517.st m
Unfortunately, DungeonJayne you�ve fallen into the trap so beloved by oppressors throughout the world. You have confused freedom to commit crime (the last four of the five examples you quoted) with the freedom to go about your lawful business unmolested (the first of your examples). Your analogy is therefore specious.
There is a fine line between justifiable inconvenience (which must be of benefit to many to be justified) and unnecessary interference. I believe the fingerprinting scheme to fall into the latter if, for no other reason, it will fail to achieve its stated aim. (This is by no means clear anyway. In one breath the press release talks of fighting terrorism, in the next it goes on about facilitating access to duty free shops. There is quite a difference between these two aims).
Many people in the UK have been hoodwinked into accepting that almost anything goes so long as it is announced under a �counter-terrorism� banner. This proposed scheme is but another way of obtaining personal information from the populace by telling them that it is good for them. Yes some people might commit serious crimes. But that is no justification for forcibly taking and storing personal information about everybody.
There is a fine line between justifiable inconvenience (which must be of benefit to many to be justified) and unnecessary interference. I believe the fingerprinting scheme to fall into the latter if, for no other reason, it will fail to achieve its stated aim. (This is by no means clear anyway. In one breath the press release talks of fighting terrorism, in the next it goes on about facilitating access to duty free shops. There is quite a difference between these two aims).
Many people in the UK have been hoodwinked into accepting that almost anything goes so long as it is announced under a �counter-terrorism� banner. This proposed scheme is but another way of obtaining personal information from the populace by telling them that it is good for them. Yes some people might commit serious crimes. But that is no justification for forcibly taking and storing personal information about everybody.
-- answer removed --
I cant belive how much they use the excuse 'war on terror' to do whay every they want, if someone going to blow themselves up how is taking a fingure print going to stop them?
There's some sort of conspiracy going on if you ask me!!
All of this makes me hate flying as I just feel like a criminal sometimes!!
There's some sort of conspiracy going on if you ask me!!
All of this makes me hate flying as I just feel like a criminal sometimes!!
The trouble is, you can't be selective about freedom.
Terrorists don't wear tee shirts saying "plane bomber".
If you are left "unmolested" to go about your lawful business, then they must also be left "unmolested" to go about their unlawful business.
Either we submit to their invasion of our privacy ...
... or, terrorists enjoy our unmolested freedom.
I know which way I'd feel safer.
SO HERE'S MY IDEA
Airports in the future need separate terminals.
Terminal 1 - flights where the passengers are searched, photographed, fingerprinted, security checked, cross checked, checked again.
Terminal 2 - all passengers walk on board "unmolested".
From Terminal 2, all the planes could fly at low altitude, so that when they get blown up, the passengers don't have too far to fall.
Terrorists don't wear tee shirts saying "plane bomber".
If you are left "unmolested" to go about your lawful business, then they must also be left "unmolested" to go about their unlawful business.
Either we submit to their invasion of our privacy ...
... or, terrorists enjoy our unmolested freedom.
I know which way I'd feel safer.
SO HERE'S MY IDEA
Airports in the future need separate terminals.
Terminal 1 - flights where the passengers are searched, photographed, fingerprinted, security checked, cross checked, checked again.
Terminal 2 - all passengers walk on board "unmolested".
From Terminal 2, all the planes could fly at low altitude, so that when they get blown up, the passengers don't have too far to fall.
Hey SKA, that's great.
Because hopefully, if the system makes YOU feel like a criminal ...
... then hopefully it will make the CRIMINALS feel like criminals too.
You see how well the system works.
Let me ask you this.
If the Police were certain that baby Maddy McCann was being held in a home in the UK, and that they could find her, but only if they were allowed to search each and every home ...
... would you say yes, or would your "civil liberties" come before Maddy's ?
Because hopefully, if the system makes YOU feel like a criminal ...
... then hopefully it will make the CRIMINALS feel like criminals too.
You see how well the system works.
Let me ask you this.
If the Police were certain that baby Maddy McCann was being held in a home in the UK, and that they could find her, but only if they were allowed to search each and every home ...
... would you say yes, or would your "civil liberties" come before Maddy's ?
Blimey, that's a bit hysterical.
Take a look at the number of freedom-inhibiting laws that the George Bush has introduced since 9/11 and tell me that they're all necessary or justified.
The anti-terrorism line is trotted out by him each and every time. And those who object - even in the most level-headed rational terms - are accused of being anti-patriotic.
And now the same thing is happening here. It's a banner of convenience for governments to introduce greater control. And you've bought it. Pity.
More to the point though, terrorists are doing their best to disrupt our way of life. That's the objective. Has it occured to you that, by introducing law after law that puts out ordinary people, the government is doing exactly what the terorists want?
Take a look at the number of freedom-inhibiting laws that the George Bush has introduced since 9/11 and tell me that they're all necessary or justified.
The anti-terrorism line is trotted out by him each and every time. And those who object - even in the most level-headed rational terms - are accused of being anti-patriotic.
And now the same thing is happening here. It's a banner of convenience for governments to introduce greater control. And you've bought it. Pity.
More to the point though, terrorists are doing their best to disrupt our way of life. That's the objective. Has it occured to you that, by introducing law after law that puts out ordinary people, the government is doing exactly what the terorists want?
If the Police were certain that baby Maddy McCann was being held in a home in the UK, and that they could find her, but only if they were allowed to search each and every home ...
... would you say yes, or would your "civil liberties" come before Maddy's ?
I had a motorbike stolen once.
Please can you supply your address so that I can come round and search your house to ensure it is not there.
After all, it must be somewhere.
If you have nothing to hide, what is your concern?
... would you say yes, or would your "civil liberties" come before Maddy's ?
I had a motorbike stolen once.
Please can you supply your address so that I can come round and search your house to ensure it is not there.
After all, it must be somewhere.
If you have nothing to hide, what is your concern?
I'm 39
Have never been arrested or in trouble with the police.
As I see it having your fingerprints taken at the airport will have two major benefits:
1. A set of fingerprints is linked to one passport it will stop people using multiple passports
Outcome: harder/impossible for people to have multiple passports to get up to no good
2. If someone is passing through and airport it could flag up if someone is wanted by the police, has outstanding warrants against them, has missed a court appearance etc etc
Outcome: The opportunity to catch more people who jump bail, fail to appear in court etc - which is currently a massive problem.
So as a law abiding citizen with no criminal record I would be greatful if someone could explain to me how this is going to effect me.
Have never been arrested or in trouble with the police.
As I see it having your fingerprints taken at the airport will have two major benefits:
1. A set of fingerprints is linked to one passport it will stop people using multiple passports
Outcome: harder/impossible for people to have multiple passports to get up to no good
2. If someone is passing through and airport it could flag up if someone is wanted by the police, has outstanding warrants against them, has missed a court appearance etc etc
Outcome: The opportunity to catch more people who jump bail, fail to appear in court etc - which is currently a massive problem.
So as a law abiding citizen with no criminal record I would be greatful if someone could explain to me how this is going to effect me.
So as a law abiding citizen with no criminal record I would be greatful if someone could explain to me how this is going to effect me.
Well for a start you will have to get to the airport around 2 1/2 hours early (working on a flight of 300 people and it taking 30 seconds per person).
More likely it will take around a minute per person, so 5 hours to get people through (or on a 500 + passenger 747, 8 hours).
Still queuing for 8 hours to go on holiday is not really a problem if it helps eh?
Do you actually know the amount of people who skip bail and leave the country, or the number of people travelling on other people's passports?
Well for a start you will have to get to the airport around 2 1/2 hours early (working on a flight of 300 people and it taking 30 seconds per person).
More likely it will take around a minute per person, so 5 hours to get people through (or on a 500 + passenger 747, 8 hours).
Still queuing for 8 hours to go on holiday is not really a problem if it helps eh?
Do you actually know the amount of people who skip bail and leave the country, or the number of people travelling on other people's passports?
Lovely to see you are still up your own backside Vic
No I dont know figures i'm sure you do
However i would image that terrorists wouldn't travel on their own passports the same as criminals who leave the country.
So far your arguement is that it will take longer to check in lol how do you know it will take a minute?
Current check in is 2 hours anyway and I think that only someone who lives on the moon would think that check in would take 8 hours.
So for the second time Vic apart from a longer check in time exactly what does a law abiding citizen have to fear?
No I dont know figures i'm sure you do
However i would image that terrorists wouldn't travel on their own passports the same as criminals who leave the country.
So far your arguement is that it will take longer to check in lol how do you know it will take a minute?
Current check in is 2 hours anyway and I think that only someone who lives on the moon would think that check in would take 8 hours.
So for the second time Vic apart from a longer check in time exactly what does a law abiding citizen have to fear?
Lovely to see you are still up your own backside Vic
Why am I up my own backside? For answering your question?
No I dont know figures i'm sure you do
No I don't and have never claimed to - I presumed that you did know since you said that there would be benefits to this.
So for the second time Vic apart from a longer check in time exactly what does a law abiding citizen have to fear?
At the risk of getting into a Monty Python Spanish Inquistion sketch, it's an erosion of civil liberties.
How about you are only allowed one email address and every item is read before it is passed on to you? It is pretty obvious that terrorists use emails to communicate?
Yes, it may take an extra day for you to get your emails, but hey, it's worth it isn't it? Would you be happy with that? What about if every letter that you received was opened first?
If a person has skipped bail or has an outstanding warrant, then it would be pretty easy to stop their passport. What difference would fingerprints make?
Why am I up my own backside? For answering your question?
No I dont know figures i'm sure you do
No I don't and have never claimed to - I presumed that you did know since you said that there would be benefits to this.
So for the second time Vic apart from a longer check in time exactly what does a law abiding citizen have to fear?
At the risk of getting into a Monty Python Spanish Inquistion sketch, it's an erosion of civil liberties.
How about you are only allowed one email address and every item is read before it is passed on to you? It is pretty obvious that terrorists use emails to communicate?
Yes, it may take an extra day for you to get your emails, but hey, it's worth it isn't it? Would you be happy with that? What about if every letter that you received was opened first?
If a person has skipped bail or has an outstanding warrant, then it would be pretty easy to stop their passport. What difference would fingerprints make?
So how many hours is this scanning process supposed to take?
The one time I've been to Florida, I got retina scanned, and fingerprint scanned. The queue at Immigration moved a lot more smoothly than it seems to in the UK.
The next day, at the Magic Kingdom, I had to give a fingerprint scan to get through the barrier. The barrier knew that I was who I said I was, because my fingerprint matched the one I had given at Orlando Airport.
Did I feel molested?
No. I felt safe.
Oh, oneeyedvic ...
- air passengers blown out of the sky? Irreplaceable
- missing child? Irreplaceable
- your motorbike? Probably doesn't justify quite the same measures, do you think?
The one time I've been to Florida, I got retina scanned, and fingerprint scanned. The queue at Immigration moved a lot more smoothly than it seems to in the UK.
The next day, at the Magic Kingdom, I had to give a fingerprint scan to get through the barrier. The barrier knew that I was who I said I was, because my fingerprint matched the one I had given at Orlando Airport.
Did I feel molested?
No. I felt safe.
Oh, oneeyedvic ...
- air passengers blown out of the sky? Irreplaceable
- missing child? Irreplaceable
- your motorbike? Probably doesn't justify quite the same measures, do you think?
But surely you are more effected by crime than you are by terrorism or kidnapping?
And you want to do your duty and uphold the law?
Anyway, back to the matter in hand - how many terrorist attacks have there been using planes that would have been prevented by fingerprinting
Were any of the 19 hijackers known terrorists?
Okay, what about the June 7th bombings? would identity cards or fingerprinting have helped then?
Glasgow attempt?
hmmmm
And you want to do your duty and uphold the law?
Anyway, back to the matter in hand - how many terrorist attacks have there been using planes that would have been prevented by fingerprinting
Were any of the 19 hijackers known terrorists?
Okay, what about the June 7th bombings? would identity cards or fingerprinting have helped then?
Glasgow attempt?
hmmmm
There have been a few giant leaps made here!
Firstly, DungeonJayne and her example using the McCann child. If the police were to say �We want to search your house, and whilst inside we�ll take a few photographs which we�ll keep indefinitely� I most certainly would object.
Now the Reverend. The two �benefits� cited are highly unlikely to be realised. People holding multiple passports improperly will quickly find a way round the system. And to believe that bail jumpers will be detected at airports via fingerprints is fanciful in the extreme.
This post shows that the government is succeeding in its aim to get the population to believe that invasion of their privacy, usually by stealth, is acceptable. Their line is that the end always justifies the means.
So let�s consider this. Say the proposal to fingerprint all travellers is implemented. In a couple of years time along comes another � to take a DNA sample (and retain the profile) of all travellers. The usual justification (security) is cited and �after all, we already take your fingerprints, so it�s not so much more. Of course, if you�ve nothing to hide...�
Six months later another � to do the same on the London Underground. �Security, you know. Of course, if you�ve nothing to hide...�
A year or two later another proposal � to ask all travellers to turn up 12 hours before travelling. �All these checks we have to make take so long. Of course we�ll build a holding station for you to spend your time in whilst we make the checks, and once in, you won�t be able to leave. Of course, if you�ve nothing to hide...�
Fanciful? I think not. The frightening aspect of this is not the proposal, it�s the readiness of large numbers of people to accept such measures without question.
Firstly, DungeonJayne and her example using the McCann child. If the police were to say �We want to search your house, and whilst inside we�ll take a few photographs which we�ll keep indefinitely� I most certainly would object.
Now the Reverend. The two �benefits� cited are highly unlikely to be realised. People holding multiple passports improperly will quickly find a way round the system. And to believe that bail jumpers will be detected at airports via fingerprints is fanciful in the extreme.
This post shows that the government is succeeding in its aim to get the population to believe that invasion of their privacy, usually by stealth, is acceptable. Their line is that the end always justifies the means.
So let�s consider this. Say the proposal to fingerprint all travellers is implemented. In a couple of years time along comes another � to take a DNA sample (and retain the profile) of all travellers. The usual justification (security) is cited and �after all, we already take your fingerprints, so it�s not so much more. Of course, if you�ve nothing to hide...�
Six months later another � to do the same on the London Underground. �Security, you know. Of course, if you�ve nothing to hide...�
A year or two later another proposal � to ask all travellers to turn up 12 hours before travelling. �All these checks we have to make take so long. Of course we�ll build a holding station for you to spend your time in whilst we make the checks, and once in, you won�t be able to leave. Of course, if you�ve nothing to hide...�
Fanciful? I think not. The frightening aspect of this is not the proposal, it�s the readiness of large numbers of people to accept such measures without question.
I've got a better idea New Judge ...
... let's all carry rabbits' feet, and fly with our fingers crossed, and hope that the terrorists who anonymously slip through the net are on somebody else's plane, and not ours.
Because slip through the net they will.
Sadly, in the modern World, there can be no freedom without eternal vigilance.
Those who seek to restrict the vigilance unwittingly believe that you are championing freedom. In reality, you are doing the opposite.
If the security forces are not allowed to watch us, then the people who wish to commit evil will be watching us instead, and rubbing their hands.
... let's all carry rabbits' feet, and fly with our fingers crossed, and hope that the terrorists who anonymously slip through the net are on somebody else's plane, and not ours.
Because slip through the net they will.
Sadly, in the modern World, there can be no freedom without eternal vigilance.
Those who seek to restrict the vigilance unwittingly believe that you are championing freedom. In reality, you are doing the opposite.
If the security forces are not allowed to watch us, then the people who wish to commit evil will be watching us instead, and rubbing their hands.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
So The President & Foreign Minister...
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Home & Garden12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.