Dodger Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 Call me naive...or something else if you want! But what exactly is the problem? I understand the gov are crap at handling personal information, but surely wanting to make sure passengers are who they say they are and go where they say they are going isn't a bad thing? Ok it would be nice if we could all trust each other and get along "excuse me sir, are you a terrorist?" not sure that would work, there are people out there that want to blow other people up for no apparent reason, seemingly the only way to attempt to catch them out is to increase security, which means inconvenience for everyone. Obviously i've never read 1984 (although it is on my list) so maybe i'll think differently after that. Just my opinion anyway, i've been fingerprinted entering the US and it didn't affect me in anyway, i'm not suffering any side effects anyway....well I put on about 2 stone but I think that was the food The problem is do they fingerprint in high risk countries? No! They have taken pictures of each passenger for years which has always been used to verify you are the same person. The only benefit I can see with this is those that wear the Hijab (Muslim Veil) can be identified without issue. There have been cases where suspects have been able to leave the country on their sisters passport by dressing them up in full muslim dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 The problem is do they fingerprint in high risk countries? No! They have taken pictures of each passenger for years which has always been used to verify you are the same person. The only benefit I can see with this is those that wear the Hijab (Muslim Veil) can be identified without issue. There have been cases where suspects have been able to leave the country on their sisters passport by dressing them up in full muslim dress. This is about checking that the guy who boards the plane is the guy who checked in and bought the ticket. What's high risk countries got to do with it? Why do you find a photograph less of an issue than a fingerprint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Call me naive...or something else if you want! But what exactly is the problem? I understand the gov are crap at handling personal information, but surely wanting to make sure passengers are who they say they are and go where they say they are going isn't a bad thing? Ok it would be nice if we could all trust each other and get along "excuse me sir, are you a terrorist?" not sure that would work, there are people out there that want to blow other people up for no apparent reason, seemingly the only way to attempt to catch them out is to increase security, which means inconvenience for everyone. Obviously i've never read 1984 (although it is on my list) so maybe i'll think differently after that. Just my opinion anyway, i've been fingerprinted entering the US and it didn't affect me in anyway, i'm not suffering any side effects anyway....well I put on about 2 stone but I think that was the food You are naive ID cards and biometrics have not, and will not stop terrorism, as already demonstrated around the world over the past ten years (including 911, and the recent London and Madrid bombings) - simply because you cannot scan peoples intentions. It's the NIR database behind the system that people don't like, many of the issues of which can be read here - as well as what such a database could eventually lead to, and the fundamental reversal of the individual/state relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 The problem is do they fingerprint in high risk countries? No! They have taken pictures of each passenger for years which has always been used to verify you are the same person. The only benefit I can see with this is those that wear the Hijab (Muslim Veil) can be identified without issue. There have been cases where suspects have been able to leave the country on their sisters passport by dressing them up in full muslim dress. This is about checking that the guy who boards the plane is the guy who checked in and bought the ticket. What's high risk countries got to do with it? Why do you find a photograph less of an issue than a fingerprint? You have your picture take prior to going into departures (secure area) and then your picture is brought up at the gate to verify who you are. Why do we need to go for both fingerprints and picture? As I said previously, the only benefit is those who cover their faces. Why do you need to do this when transfering from an international flight to a domestic one as well? have you not passed through passport control, where your biometric data has been already checked, why is further checking necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 This piece from the Sunday Herald just about sums up my feeling on the issue Dr Gus Hosein, of the London School of Economics who has studied the impact of technology on civil liberties, claimed the government is "softening up" people, particularly the young, by making fingerprinting appear acceptable in the run up to ID cards. Hosein, who compared the scheme to those run by the Nazis as part of the Jewish persecution, said: "It's abhorrent and completely unnecessary to introduce this technology in a so-called democratic society. "This is not how we treat people. I was brought up to believe the only time they will be fingerprinted are criminals. "Britain is the first country in the democratic world to introduce this scheme as mandatory for flights within its borders. There would be a revolution if it happened in the US. "What the UK government has been doing over the past decade, and particularly in the last six years, is desensitising people to the idea of being fingerprinted. "Labour is the only party in the UK which supports the fingerprinting of children in schools through biometrics so they can use the library or buy food. The beauty of what the party has done is these young people don't have the images of 1940s Germany, or that fingerprinting is for people who break the law. "The aim is to make them grow up thinking fingerprinting is absolutely fine and ID cards are a natural extension of that. "People will be desensitised so they don't feel like criminals, although they are being treated like them." If they get away with this on the Londonto Scotland air route then it will be the end of free movement accross the British Isles. It has got to be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 You have your picture take prior to going into departures (secure area) and then your picture is brought up at the gate to verify who you are. Why do we need to go for both fingerprints and picture? As I said previously, the only benefit is those who cover their faces. Because it's a quick and reliable extra check. Two guys who look similar might get through, two different fingerprints wont. Why do you need to do this when transfering from an international flight to a domestic one as well? have you not passed through passport control, where your biometric data has been already checked, why is further checking necessary? If you read the press on this, it explains. There's one lounge for domestic and international departures. They don't want someone who's checked through lighter domestic security swapping their pass with someone destined for an interenational flight, thus bipassing international security checks. So when you mix domestic and international, both must get the check. Albert, this system may deny undesirables an easy route through airport security, how do you know it won't at least hinder terrorist efforts? Either way, this is about border control and immigration than just terrorism prevention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 If they get away with this on the Londonto Scotland air route then it will be the end of free movement accross the British Isles. It has got to be stopped. Oh my arse it does, it's the end of free movement through airport gates ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 simply because you cannot scan peoples intentions. Which is all the more reason to have 'thought police' then we'll nail them - you see, you dream of Orwell's 1984 coming true is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted February 4, 2008 Author Share Posted February 4, 2008 You have your picture take prior to going into departures (secure area) and then your picture is brought up at the gate to verify who you are. Why do we need to go for both fingerprints and picture? As I said previously, the only benefit is those who cover their faces. Because it's a quick and reliable extra check. Two guys who look similar might get through, two different fingerprints wont. Why do you need to do this when transfering from an international flight to a domestic one as well? have you not passed through passport control, where your biometric data has been already checked, why is further checking necessary? If you read the press on this, it explains. There's one lounge for domestic and international departures. They don't want someone who's checked through lighter domestic security swapping their pass with someone destined for an interenational flight, thus bipassing international security checks. So when you mix domestic and international, both must get the check. Albert, this system may deny undesirables an easy route through airport security, how do you know it won't at least hinder terrorist efforts? Either way, this is about border control and immigration than just terrorism prevention. AI, you are wrong about the departure lounges, Manchester airport has always had shared facilities, hence the duty free/tax free prices, this is extra checks unnecesarily. The transfer from international to domestic is my point you have already been through passport control etc, this isn't about going domestic to international, this is international to domestic. The other option is to go out of international and re-check in in domestic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 those against have 700 years of history and a Magna Carta behind them, which you seem to want to ignore and tear up. Albert I'm with you in principle on this - but I don't think Magna Carta dealt with biometrics - or even gave any guarantees which would be effected by this. In any case what is wrong with treating all IoM-UK flights be treated as international rather than domestic? IoM is not part of the UK, and isn't even part of the EU. It's not like a flight from Stanstead to Liverpool. If it's ok to have this for international flights to and from the UK, then what's the problem with having this for flights to/from IoM and UK? If the issue is fingerprinting when in transit between international flights in a UK airport (without clearing immigration), then that is another question. If you are passing through a UK airport in transit to/from IoM and not going into the UK, then maybe the UK's regulations on this should not be enforced. I don't think the UK fingerprints the millions of international travellers who transit through UK airports - if so, then why treat IoM like it's part of the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 those against have 700 years of history and a Magna Carta behind them, which you seem to want to ignore and tear up. Albert I'm with you in principle on this - but I don't think Magna Carta dealt with biometrics - or even gave any guarantees which would be effected by this. In any case what is wrong with treating all IoM-UK flights be treated as international rather than domestic? IoM is not part of the UK, and isn't even part of the EU. It's not like a flight from Stanstead to Liverpool. If it's ok to have this for international flights to and from the UK, then what's the problem with having this for flights to/from IoM and UK? If the issue is fingerprinting when in transit between international flights in a UK airport (without clearing immigration), then that is another question. If you are passing through a UK airport in transit to/from IoM and not going into the UK, then maybe the UK's regulations on this should not be enforced. I don't think the UK fingerprints the millions of international travellers who transit through UK airports - if so, then why treat IoM like it's part of the UK? The issue with fingerprinting is those transiting from international to domestic are told they must give fingerprints, what is wrong with the biometrics already used for the international flight? Once you are security checked and airside, you shouldn't be a risk! The BAA are trying to sell this by offering enhanced facilities that are provided for the international passenger, rather than having to supply facilities in both domestic and international lounges. They do give an opt out in that you can exit international and re-check in, but you could end up missing the connecting flight, therefore some choice! But if they can get away with this they can reduce the amount of outlets in domestic lounges and charge more for the ground rent, therefore greater profit and more passengers in one area. There is also the 90 day ruling for UK tax, if you stay airside it doesn't count if you go into the UK it counts as a day. For those who travel on business this could be very expensive! I have to admit that I have never been fingerprinted, not even on international flights and I have been round the world. This is not necessary and is dubious as to whether it satisfys the data protection law, certainly not morally acceptable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Can anyone give me a specific example of what their worry is about having their fingerprint stored on file by the Government? I'm too lazy to think it through myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Can anyone give me a specific example of what their worry is about having their fingerprint stored on file by the Government? I'm too lazy to think it through myself. I can't think of a specific reason to worry about the Government installing CCTV in peoples homes either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Can anyone give me a specific example of what their worry is about having their fingerprint stored on file by the Government? I'm too lazy to think it through myself. I can't think of a specific reason to worry about the Government installing CCTV in peoples homes either. When's this coming in then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Can anyone give me a specific example of what their worry is about having their fingerprint stored on file by the Government? I'm too lazy to think it through myself. I can't think of a specific reason to worry about the Government installing CCTV in peoples homes either. There's no need to be sarcastic - it's just that some of us need convincing without being spoken at in generalisations all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.