DHS To Grab Biometric Data From Green Card Holders 248
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Nextgov:
"The Homeland Security Department has announced plans to expand its biometric data collection program to include foreign permanent residents and refugees. Almost all noncitizens will be required to provide digital fingerprints and a photograph upon entry into the United States as of Jan. 18. A notice (PDF) in Friday's Federal Register said expansion of the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US VISIT) will include 'nearly all aliens,' except Canadian citizens on brief visits. Those categories include permanent residents with green cards, individuals seeking to enter on immigrant visas, and potential refugees. The US VISIT program was developed after the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks to collect fingerprints from foreign visitors and run them against the FBI's terrorist watch list and other criminal databases. Another phase of the project, to develop an exit system to track foreign nationals leaving the country, has run into repeated setbacks."
Reader MirrororriM points out other DHS news that they're thinking about monitoring blogs for information on terrorists.
US citizens will be next? (Score:2, Interesting)
Give it a couple of years and another homegrown terrorist. The only thing holding them back is that citizens, uh, vote!
Getting worse than the old USSR? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the fear of being asked for "Your papers?" in the old USSR?. This is going to be just as bad - this junk needs to stop. How you you feel as an American citizen, when going into another country, and being fingerprinted, retinal scanned, etc.
Lack of privacy, unreasonable search, etc..... I say no way.
Re:Getting worse than the old USSR? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember the fear of being asked for "Your papers?" in the old USSR?
No. And I lived there. USSR had single document -- passport -- serving as the primary ID for everything. "Your papers?" stuff was from Nazi Germany, where government was extremely concerned about losing track of ethnic minorities, what seems to be the exact equivalent of this "effort" in US.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not "were", "are". There's no USSR anymore, but the rules haven't changed in Russia in that regard.
Re:I think you are missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
In USSR, all citizens were supposed to carry their passports at all times, and show them to the police and other authorities whenever they demanded to see it, or face detention. It's like having to have a driver's license while driving, only for just being there.
No. Who told you that?
For example, my friends who chose to wear their hair long learned to never forget their passport at home.
Your "friends" lived in USSR in early 60's when things like that still bothered cops? Then passports wouldn't help them.
In major cities like Moscow, your passport had to have a stamp permitting you to live in that city, or you had to have papers showing that you are there on business. You could not just come to Moscow and live there, you needed a permission and that stamp.
That's propiska, residence registration, you moron. It means that you have an apartment or house in the city. Government provided apartments for token rent, so when you moved to another city you had to go through official channel exchanging apartments, buying a house or getting employer/school-sponsored one. People didn't have to spend anything significant on rent -- having a place to live was considered a basic right, however having it in, say, center of Moscow, obviously was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Government provided apartments for token rent, so when you moved to another city you had to go through official channel
I think that's exactly the parent's point: Russian citizens had (have?) no Freedom of movement. The fact that you see nothing wrong with that is what's scary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans have "freedom of movement" (actually freedom of not telling the government that they have moved) at the expense of a right to a dwelling, and 30%-50% of their income being eaten by rent or mortgages.
After living in both countries I can assure all of you that "right to a dwelling" alone provides more impact than all your piddly "you have a right if you are rich enough, otherwise you are screwed" rights.
Re: (Score:2)
After living in both countries I can assure all of you that "right to a dwelling" alone provides more impact than all your piddly "you have a right if you are rich enough, otherwise you are screwed" rights.
So you'd rather live where the Government tells you than have the freedom to decide that for yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
So what percentage of their income do the Russians pay for their government-assigned housing and utilities?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Like it or not, the bill of rights doesn't apply to non-citizens."
Where in the bill of rights does it say that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it does! The Constitution applies to the U.S. government, stating what it may and may not do to or for ANYONE.
In the few cases where the Constitution means for something to apply only to citizens, it is spelled out quite clearly (things like voting, being eligible for the presidency, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't hold them back. It takes a bit of getting used to. A homegrown terrorist would likely make it go a lot faster.
I really like to see the outcry of "we want security" the next time something happens. It looks like the US is shutting down step by step and heading directly into the dark ages. Who wants to deal with a bully? So, US citizens, if you are so afraid to die, you surely are more afraid of living.
Re:US citizens will be next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US citizens will be next? (Score:4, Insightful)
The last time I tried to cross the Canadian border was so annoying I have not bothered going back to Canada in a long time. Every since 9/11, paranoia has been reigning supreme.
Of course, tracking fingerprints and pictures will not make anyone more secure, since (a) the probability of dying from a terrorist attack is tiny in comparasion to many other daily dangers we embrace everyday without a second thought, like driving, for instance, and (b) the would-be terrorist organizations, if they are really all that inclined, need only find fresh recruits who have not been fingered by the FBI or Homeland Insecurity yet.
41,000 people die on US highways every year. How many people die in the US from terrorism every year? The attention to the so-called threat does not mesh with the actual facts and the real risk factors.
So I am not impressed in the least about any of this crap. Just another excuse for the government to stir up fear to create its own "need".
Re:US citizens will be next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...Up until the last time I went to the U.S.A. I hated crossing into Canada more. But now, the U.S. wins the 'onerous prize'.
Yes, indeed. The last time I came back from Canada, the US ding dongs gave me a very hard time, and was deliberately trying to work up my ire. It's as if these guys have nothing better to do other than to harass border crossers.
To which I say, what's the point? What is gained by bad-assing people crossing the border? It's really takes from the whole idea of a "good getaway" if you are always being steamed at the border.
For me, it's a 3-4 hour drive to the border, and it's not something I look forward t
Re: (Score:2)
You talk about all of those aspects as though they are unique to the US. In case it's somehow not blindingly obvious, they're NOT.
Japan already takes the measures mentioned in the article. The outrage was minimal.
Other countries have just the amount of blind patriotism and jingoism that let atrocities breeze by. No one seems to notice!
Keep focusing on the US, though. I know it's more gratifying to the ego to criticize entire groups of individuals as a whole, especially when they're presently king of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. Soon the only people not in the government db will be those who entered the country illegally outside of designated entry points.
...or those who are running the government db.
(what, you thought they would be honest enough to include themselves?)
Re:US citizens will be next? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the 'small' exception to this are the 'few' illegal alien, non-citizens coming in periodically from the southern border.
So, if you want to avoid HS survellience, just come across the border along TX, AZ, CA.....and don't register. It has worked so far, I doubt they'll be changing that anytime soon....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you not realize that it takes a picture to get an ID card?
Ok.
Do you not realize that it takes a fingerprint (at least in my home state) to get an ID card?
And what shithole of a state do you live in? Not everyone lives in a shithole state.
Do you not realize that every fucking citizen in the US has given up a fingerprint or picture already?
No, in fact they haven't. That's the point.
More importantly, The sep 11 hijackers had legitimately issued id, in their own names.
Re:US citizens will be next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They are just thinking about doing that!?!? (Score:2)
In a world where wiretaps, illegal searches, etc are very big issues, how on earth is simply keeping track of public and readily available, likely easily searchable blogs not an obvious choice over the other ways to gather information??
If slashdot had a terrorist corner, id expect the DHS to log in now and again. anything less would be negligent.
P.S. they should post anon. you know, for security.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where wiretaps, illegal searches, etc are very big issues, how on earth is simply keeping track of public and readily available, likely easily searchable blogs not an obvious choice over the other ways to gather information??
Wiretaps happen in real time at chokepoints.
Illegal searches are relatively narrow.
Blogs = the internet. And searching that is a much harder and broader task.
I'm not defending the illegal government actions, just pointing out that what they've been doing is vastly easier than monitoring *the internet* for terrorist chatter.
Re: (Score:2)
according to hitwise [hitwise.com] blog traffic comprises only 1.19% of all internet traffic in the UK, and the percentage for the US may be even lower since the market share of blog sites is 1.09% in the UK and 0.73% in the US.
so, saying "blogs = the internet" is not very accurate. monitoring blog sites would be far easier than trying to monitor the 6.2 billion overseas phone calls Americans make each year. unlike the voice data from phone calls, it's far easier to sift through the text data that constitutes most blog t
Monitoring spam for terrorist activities (Score:2)
blog traffic comprises only 1.19% of all internet traffic in the UK
Contrary to spam... which BTW is an excellent tool to hide terrorist communication channels and to defeat traffic analysis. I'm wondering that paranoid governments have not yet criminalized spamming on grounds of terrorism, i.e. enact CAN(T)-SPAM v2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the point here is not to compete with Google as an internet search engine, right? When was the last time someone blogged that they were going to stuff half a kilo of heroin up their ass and sneak it across the border, then rob a bank? The point is to try and improve security. While taking someone's fingerprint isn't going to stop them from committing a crime -- once someone has identified themselves by doing so (robbing a seven-eleven, raping a college co-ed, smuggling drugs or weapons)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you say there are many people with have no problem with this does not make it true.
The people who "dont have a problem: are most like
illegal immigrant , or people from countries with similarly totalitarian governments anyway, You are right, I am sure Russians and Chinese will be used to such treatment.
I certainly would not consider traveling to the US
whilst such draconian measures are in place.
I would have thought a considerable reduction in tourism would be missed.
Great... How much longer till 1984? (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't effect me as I am a citizen. That said, this is getting ridiculous. This data doesn't do DHS any good for terror tracking as there has been research suggesting that the overwhelming amounts of information is a hindrance rather then a benefit. All it's good for is when the DHS, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. decide they don't like you, they can dig through the data to find any trivial issue to drag you into an interrogation room and work you over.
Thankfully, with Obama becoming president, the odds of yo
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great... How much longer till 1984? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. Tolerating routine violations of privacy for one class of people desensitizes us to routine violations of privacy for everyone.
I would go a little further and say that systematic abuse of any class of individuals, no matter how unpopular, is something worthy of caution. Take punitive taxation of smokers, just to pick an example. I've never smoked, never will smoke, think it's a spectacularly bad idea ... but I still disagree with heavy taxes applied to cigarette sales. Why? Because if we tolerate governmental mistreatment of one group (no matter what the justification) the odds are they'll eventually do something that hits closer to home. Keep firmly in mind that a significant fraction of our leadership and senior bureaucrats are either sociopaths or have a few well-intentioned screws loose. Either way, it's best not to give them too much authority, because they'll misuse it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a somewhat different reason for opposing punitive taxation of smokers. First, taxation for behavior control is a terrible idea in itself; it's not the place of the government to command us. Secondly, the more money government gets by whatever means, the more government we'll have.
Either way, it's best not to give them too much authority, because they'll misuse it.
As PJ O'Rourke put it, giving money to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to adolescents.
-jcr
I agree: we're talking about social engineering, and that rarely works out well, no matter how well-intentioned. And frankly, as an American I don't want to live in an engineered society.
... time will tell. But nev
Unfortunately, the U.S. Federal Government not only has the car keys, but the entire liquor cabinet as well. The situation has only worsened in that regard since the recent Federal takeover of a substantial part of the financial sector. Now, maybe that was a necessary move, and maybe it wasn't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It will also be slowly expanded to include citizens.
Give them an inch, and they take a foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but much of the current tracking is not a 'coordinated' effort by the HSD.
Its that encroachment is what im concerned about.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that our government has gotten away with imprisoning people without charges for the first time since the Roosevelt administration, and the public outcry was negligible.
Umm, you realize that we are at war, right? With people that don't follow the accepted laws of war. What should we do with them? Bring them into the United States and run them through the civilian justice system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't effect me as I am a citizen.
Wrong.. Brazil has a policy of exact reciprocity with border regulations and (at least in theory; I think they often don't care in practice) takes Americans finger prints. Even more interesting, the UK is beginning to do exactly the same thing (take fingerprints of non-citizens), following on from the US example. US people are of course, not citizens of the UK.
However, part of your point is right. It's very difficult to get people to fight something where most of
Redundant (not this post, but these fingerprints) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The name "FBI" appeared on the fingerprint card. So the question still stands, why can't they digitize them?
They probably are. Probably already have been. If they have a set of prints on file from your original resident alien application, and you leave the country and return, they'll compare the old vs. the new. If the prints from your re-entry to the U.S. are different ... well, now there's a potential problem. If in fact you're using someone else's prints, it just means that if you leave you better not come back.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Therefore, this is nothing new with regard to the green card holders or applicants.
I agree (from what little I know about immigration procedures), but the headline just sounded so much more impressive, "DHS to Grab Biometric Data from Green Card Holders." My understanding is that they've been fingerprinting immigrants (and potential immigrants) for a long time now. As a citizen, if they start insisting on taking my prints, or that of my girlfriend (who is naturalized) I'd feel differently. The less I have on file with such people the happier I am: I just don't trust them to administrate s
Re: (Score:2)
"Extension"? What is it about Permanent in "Permanent Resident Alien" that the USCIS (INS) doesn't understand?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This issue has bounced back and forth in the courts a few times. I was issued a Green Card in 1978. It was a permanent card -- as in, when I turned 18 in theory I would still be carrying the same card with a picture of me as a child on it. Cards issued even earlier than mine inexplicably had wavy lines printed right over the photograph, like a canceled postage stamp.
Then one day, when I was in high school, my family all got letters saying that our cards were no longer permanent, and that not only would we n
Monitoring Blogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a good way to poison your monitoring database.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good way to poison your monitoring database.
I have the feeling there's more noise than signal in there already anyways. If you're collecting data that is ostensibly this important (I mean, what's more important that stopping terrorists?) then you tend towards a myopic, packrat-like view ... don't throw anything away, don't get too selective, because you might miss something, might not be able to bring up some important factoid on command. So, these guys just squirrel away anything and everything and don't worry too much about filtering.
Matter of f
D.H.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
der heutigen Stasi.
To help the non-germanophiles . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
der heutigen Stasi.
. . . this means something like, "today's Stasi."
The Stasi were a nasty and creepy bunch of East German secret police: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi [wikipedia.org].
They ended collecting *so* much information, that they couldn't analyze it all:
The MfS infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of civilian informants, Inoffizielle Mitarbeiter (IMs, Unofficial Collaborators), began growing in both German states; by the time East Germany collapsed in 1989, the MfS employed an estimated 91,000 employees and 300,000 informants. About one of every 50 East Germans collaborated with the MfS â" one of the most extensive police infiltrations of a society in history. In 2007 an article in BBC stated that "Some calculations have concluded that in East Germany there was one informer to every seven citizens."
The lesson here is that if you are collecting a lot of data, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are collecting the right (and useful) data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lesson here is that if you are collecting a lot of data, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are collecting the right (and useful) data.
And that even if you are collecting the most valuable data, if you swamp your facilities for rapidly analyzing said data, you might as well not bother collecting it. Granted, the U.S. Federal Government has far, far more powerful analytical capabilities than the East German government ever had ... but they're also collecting data on a vast scale without, it would seem, much thought as to what they're collecting or why. Furthermore, even mass quantities of relevant data can be subject to errors in interpreta
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Verry interesting!
Even with advanced computer technology, data collection as undertaken by the Stasi, would require a big bureaucracy. Acting on any information mined from that data collection would require an even greater bureaucracy. I doubt that any half-aware political society would tolerate that kind of expense--especially when it results in significant annoyance.
On the other hand, the US has been putting up with the obnoxious TSA for a long time. . .. Hopefully that officious bureaucracy will be me
Drinking from a fire hose (Score:4, Insightful)
The lesson here is that if you are collecting a lot of data, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are collecting the right (and useful) data.
It's like the NSA drinking from a fire hose: they are collecting so much more data than they can analyze in real time! Such data is only useful post factum, to retrace what happened (cf. 9/11). The chance to catch something useful in time and react proactively is extremely slim.
So the question is: is it worth it to undermine informational freedom of citizens (and here non-citizens) and give Government a huge database that could be used to silence opposition by blackmailing or that could leak data to third parties like, say, private investigators, just to facilitate forensic investigations? Some may say yes, others would say no.
Closing stages of republican administration (Score:2)
unbelievable isnt it ? they are 1 month from being fired, yet still try to force their agenda.
actually not. self centered, extremist right groups tend to lose perception of reality after a point. nazis at the closing stages of the war, or nixon still saying he is an honest man, are examples of that.
May be I am stupid... (Score:2)
...but could somebody explain to me how capturing these data enhances "National Security."
It might be a waste of time because folks who harm this country's citizens are more oftem willing to die. That is after harming the country anyway.
Secondly, our borders are porous to the extent that we've failed to stem the flow of drugs despite spending close to a trillion dollars on "border security."
I just do not understand.
Re:May be I am stupid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad guy A drives a car to target B and leaves his finger prints all over the place. Target B gets destroyed but the biometric evidence is left behind. Law enforcement collects the biometric data from Bad Guy A and runs it through the big data warehouse in the sky. They then presumably know all that there is to know about him. At the very least, they know where he came into the country, where he has been living and from there, perhaps who has been associating with.
I know a guy who works with the Secret Service and very well might be one of the primary agents protecting Obama once he gets into the White House. We've had long conversations about what the government does and what their capabilities are with regards to intelligence gathering. Despite all of the rhetoric about big brother and loss of privacy, I'm quite comfortable knowing that unless I'm actively trying to destablize the government, they don't care about what I am up to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize I am going to sound like someone who "doesn't" have anything to hide, but I don't. That's not to say that I support whole sale eavesdropping and privacy violations because I don't. However, I'm not planning on engaging in any crimes or activities that will draw attention. I know felons, both state and Federal, for crimes ranging from computer crimes, to serious drug cases. In all the cases, those people have deserved what they got and knew what they were doing was illegal.
Of all the people in law
Re: (Score:2)
Despite all of the rhetoric about big brother and loss of privacy, I'm quite comfortable knowing that unless I'm actively trying to destablize the government, they don't care about what I am up to.
Today. But as their technology programs are expanded they may be forced to care about what you're up to. What happens the day a computer data-mining program decides that your purchase, travel, or association activities are too far outside the norm (perhaps not even specifically troublesome) and flags you for investigation? It would be irresponsible of them to ignore this and future laws will probably accept this as a reasonable basis for investigation, if they don't already.
You have the expectation that the
Re: (Score:2)
What you are talking about already happens. If you try to buy certain chemicals, the DEA cares. If you try to purchase a bunch of fertilizer the BATF cares. If you move around certain amounts of money, the IRS cares.
We live in a country with a justice system. Just because you might be investigated for something does not mean that you're going to jail. If you have a legit reason to be in possession of something then you don't have anything to worry about. If you're a professional chemist, you can get precur
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The founders did not attempt to destabilize the monarchy, despite their ill will towards- and actions against the crown. They chose to declare independence from the empire and found a just society which avoided the possibility of tyranny. There's a big difference.
The right they fought for was a constitution, ensuring a democratically elected government which worked for the people and did not abuse them. Despite Republican claims they did not chant the "small government" mantra- they sought States' rights
Tagged slipperyslope (Score:2)
how exactly is it new? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That you still didn't manage to even get a decent sense of the language of the very country you reside in for almost 18 years now?
Immigration experiences to US - prints, bah. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been to the US numerous times, all on business trips (I get paid to travel there). Anyway, back in 2003, Dallas, on first trip ever, I was basically waved through...not so bad even coming with an completely empty, unstamped passport.
Unfortunately, ever since then, on multiple trips (Immigration checks at NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston) the fingerprints have been the least annoying part.
When the US-VISIT scheme was introduced, I went through the DHS website and looked into the privacy and data storage implications. Basically the PDF docs on the site showed such a horrendous architecture that I was pretty confident that my fingerprints will be safe in bowels of a system that probably won't ever really work (and I'm not a US taxpayer so I don't care that much where their money goes).
This was confirmed on my arrival to PHL - I thought that since I've been on multiple visits before that the officer probably has all my info on her screen the moment she wipes my (machine-readeable, not yet biometric) passport.
Guess what? I have scandinavian letters in my name (ääääööö). The officer asked me under what name I'd like to enter the US - should she type in my name with ä => ae or ä => a conversion. I gave the ä => a version since that's what everyone is in reality using... but kinda felt a bit let down of the awesome border security procedures...I'm starting to realize where all the Usama/Osama problems stem from. I thought that they'd at least use, say, the passport number if not the "code" field as primary key...At least if on some trip I land in trouble I can just claim "No, it's just a misspelled name, I'm really that other guy..."
Point I'm getting here: Fingerprints are minor piece of annoyance that add a bit to the travelers problems. For me, the privacy implications were pretty well addressed by DHS docs. The guy that interviews you at the border is the first person who you meet in foreign country - it's his behavior that gives the first impression.
The annoying part has been the attitude of almost all occasions I've basically felt that arrogance of "YOU ARE NOTHING, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I LET YOU IN, you pitiful European". Some vindication came on the last time in:
I was recently in Minneapolis IETF, and went through Chicago again (to change planes to Minneapolis). I don't know whether it was "economy is down, this foreign guy might bring in some serious money" or the fact that it was Obama's home town and everyone was still in great post-election mood and they forgot to be jackasses - but the guy at the desk was really nice. He ofc asked all the same questions as every other time - where I'm going and why - but the attitude made me actually feel welcome to the US. He basically apologized that they have to these days take the whole hand (prints from all fingers) but also said how much better the reader is compared to old one, told me that if I'm planning to spend any time in Chicago he could name a couple of good steakhouses - before stamping my passport and sending me on to the baggage carousel.
Now, timewise it wasn't any faster than any previous visits - same 5 minutes to process me - but I actually felt a bit happy after 16-hour flight (with transfers).
Mind you, I've gotten the "I'm welcome" feeling in EVERY other country I've visited, ever. At all borders they've acquired the same information - why I'm there, when I'm leaving and what I'm planning to do - but I'll be glad to visit Canada, UK, Thailand, Japan, Australia, NZ, and even Russia again - as a tourist, spending my own money.
If I'll get the same experience on my subsequent US business trips as I got on my latest one, I might actually come in again as a tourist, bring friends, and spend some of my own money, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that the ratio of USCBP border agents who are nice versus annoyed to even have to deal with you is about 1:10.
I'm pretty sure making people feel uncomfortable is part of their training under the auspices that it'll make them slip up on something if they're lying.
And don't feel bad... it's not any better for Canadians, or at least, not for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Or for Americans. I am an American and travel with an American passport. Upon the return of my last trip, amoung other questions I was asked "Why are you returning to the United States? What do you do for a living? Where are you going to sleep tonight?"
Hmmm, Why would an American who lives in American and travels with an American passport be returning to America? I'll give you a few moments to ponder that one sparky.
Re: (Score:2)
I have number of very similar experiences. I live in Michigan, and have several extended family members in New England that I visit quite often. The shortest way to drive from Michigan to New England is through Canada. I have traveled his way number of times in past several years. It's always the same: when entering Canada, you are welcomed by a pleasant officer, who asks the usual questions you get asked on any other border crossing, plus if you have any firearms in the vehicle. Then they let you in t
It's really random (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of the problem is that there's little to no accountability in the DHS so assholes get to stay. Another part of the problem is it doesn't pay all that well so they don't get the best and brightest, as it were. So you get a real mixed bag. I've had people who were extremely polite, I've had assholes that were looking for a way to keep me out (I'm a US citizen so they can't).
On the Canadian side of the border (where I usually travel) I've found they are usually politer, but not always and generally not mu
because it has worked so well (Score:2)
They're doing this because they have caught oh-so-many terrorists using that fingerprint and face data so far, right?
keep in mind... (Score:2)
Japan is doing the same thing, and I suspect other countries are as well. I think European nations just quietly scan your passport, including picture. Relatively speaking, the US isn't all that bad.
Of course, I think the US should lead by being more open and more liberal. I don't see what all this data is really good for.
Does this kind of program even work? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think two things:
1. WTF. I'm not a crimial, and the majority of people aren't either and yet we're all subjected to this kind of BS.
2. Does it even work? Why are countries making all of these efforts and the citizens are the last to hear about it.
Will biometrics really make a difference at the borders? The first thing I think of are ways that a person could get around this
By water or land people cross the borders all the time.
This all started with 9/11 by people who were in the country legally... so ya, this just doesn't make any sense to me and makes me more frustrated with our governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are countries making all of these efforts and the citizens are the last to hear about it.
Because those selling the "solutions" are really good at their job, and those buying have difficulty saying "no"
Good, and so what ????? (Score:2)
Good.
Nothing can be had with a fingerprint and a picture.
If you don't believe me, stop picking ANYTHING up, don't handle a FUCKING thing gloveless, and don't EVER leave the house.
I guess refugee's better not attempt to get a drivers license, either. Nor public benefits, since both (at least in my state) require a fingerprint and / or a picture.
Fuck, getting paranoid about having your picture taken. Gee, that's A LOT tinfoil hat. Since nearly, if not ALL, of us have a government issued ID card with at lea
You already need it. (Score:2)
This is old news. I'm a resident alien since 3 years. They took all 10 fingerprints an eyescan and a blood sample as well as mugshot pictures. A fingerprint and a picture is on your resident card
Already done (Score:4, Informative)
When I applied for (and subsequently received, in 2006) my green card, a photo and fingerprints were taken.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dude... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, I totally saw Bin Laden at the local supermarket yesterday.
Except Canadians? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
but I'm saying tracking non-citizens is just common sense.
Of course, if it really was "common sense", then it's the kind of thing that would have been in place for decades. Ergo, it is not "common sense", but yet another "security theatre" response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 150 years ago we had fingerprinting capabilities, border patrols like we have now, data mining capabilities, wierdos and wackjobs wanting to kill anyone related to democracy or an agenda that doesn't agree with their own, etc.
The list goes on, and so does the drivel. Bottom line is this is a non-story, as fingerprints have always been required. The only story here is they will be kept on file, digitally, as well as pictures will be taken: Which happened as soon as people got here ANYWAY, so they co
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line is this is a non-story, as fingerprints have always been required.
Ah, that's "always", as in "we have always been at war with Eurasia... err, always been at war with Eastasia"
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, as a non-citizen considering trying to move to the US (to be with a US citizen), I don't have a serious problem with this. Moving country is an exceptional event, and even before the whole terrorism scare it would be quite reasonable to check things like you're not letting in foreign spies.
I would look for them to say they'll get rid of the data if you become a citizen, but beyond that this isn't any more unreasonable than anything else you're asked to do to get a green card.
Re: (Score:2)
The data will be kept regardless.
Try getting a picture ID card without giving up a picture. Or a passport, or anything else government related that requires a picture.
And if your scared of your fingerprints, I guess you better cut your fingers off.
TinFoilAssHattery on Christmas. Jesus Fing Christ.
--Toll_Free
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Might have something to do with we sell you more oil then opec, more forestry products then you farm, more unrefined and in some cases refined goods you produce, more bulk raw minerals including diamonds. That if you want to keep oil flowing from alaska, you play nice, and if you like using our ports you do the same.
We also export people in the winter to the sunny southern US to keep it alive down there. On top of that we don't take anything, we have our own industry that lives on it's own. You decided y
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You make your own micro-processors? How about rubber? Aircrafts?
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft yep, rubber we can make from base or synthetics, microprocessors it depends. We do have a few micro-fabs here.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, we don't give a shit about your ports, we have plenty of ports of our own and many of them don't get buried in snow five months a year.
It's a two way street there. Don't get too smug, Canada needs the US
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, we don't give a shit about your ports, we have plenty of ports of our own and many of them don't get buried in snow five months a year.
Actually you do. Our ports don't, vancouver never freezes and halifax is open 10+mo a year. The only ports that freeze are in the great lakes, you know the ones that ship out the majority of the grain to the rest of the world.
It's a two way street there. Don't get too smug, Canada needs the US more than the US needs Canada. And no, you don't provide the US with wealth, goods are only imported because it's cheaper to do so than to manufacture them internally. If ever the dollar returns to parity with the looney for an extended period of time, Canada will start hurting.
We don't need you, as much as you need us. That's the current reality of the world economy. We're a net exporter of finished and unfinished goods. Not a net importer. If you don't understand that, I'll explain. It means that if you throw a hissy fit, we simply say 'our market is
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because of the fifty busiest ports in the world [wikipedia.org], Canada has one on the list (Vancouver) and the United States has six and five of them move more cargo than Vancouver.
This confuses me. Not the freezing ports part, but the grain shipping, because the US exports twelve times [nationmaster.com] as much grain as Canada. With 22% going via California, and the next 16% going via
Re: (Score:2)
edumucation system
Sounds ... sticky, somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this doesn't apply to Canadians has to do with cross-border transport of both finished goods and raw materials. Truckers from both Canada and the U.S. routinely cross the border to minimize transportation distance (among other things, like providing just-in-time inventory supply). Doing the whole fingerprint/photograph thing would interfere significantly with commerce and manufacturing in both countries, so that's why the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, it is not like the people of the US voted this government in to office twice is it?
The people are the country right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)