US Visitor Fingerprints To Be (Perhaps) Stored by FBI

stair69 writes "Since 2004 many visitors to the United States have had 2 fingerprints taken under the US-VISIT scheme. Now there are new plans to extend this scheme — under the proposal all 10 fingerprints will be taken, and they will be stored permanently on the FBI's criminal fingerprint database. The fingerprints will also be made available to police forces in other countries. The scheme is due to be introduced by the end of 2008, but it will be trialled in 10 of the bigger airports initially." Of course, it is worth pointing out that given the recent change in Congress, I suspect that a number of countries will get a "bye" on this round,

Which Airports

[mattwarden]

Anyone have a list of airports? I need to put them on my personal no-fly list, along with the airports participating in the "trusted passenger" trial (e.g., MCO).

Re:No finger prints helps.

[drinkypoo]

Just use a belt sander with 80 grit paper on it.

80 grit? That's like a rough file. Even 180 grit is rougher than necessary.

80 grit is what we use to take paint off of auto body (hint: taking plastic off of steel, you often benefit from a very rough surface) and to shape bondo. It's what we use to rough wood into shape, because it's fast. It's not what we use to do detail work. Your fingerprints, as you say, are maybe 1/32". I think some 220 grit would probably take them off nicely.

How Apt

[Roger W Moore]

...some countries will get a bye this round

Yes, likely a "good bye" from all their citizens who are already ticked off enough at the US. Certainly I've noticed a huge drop in the number of scientific conferences held in the US. Partly because the visa rules prevent - or at least pose severe problems - for some of those attending and partly because there is a noticeable minority of people who now refuse to travel to the US because of the fingerprinting. I can only imagine that this will swell their ranks.

Re:back at ya

[hanwen]

Brazil has a reciprocity policy when it comes to customs & visa. This means that US
citizens have a gratuitious extra 100 EUR (UK: 155) processing fee slapped
onto their visa handling fee. See eg.

http://www.brazilianembassy.nl/english/cons_513.ht m [brazilianembassy.nl]

Re:Whatnow?

[Mr Z]

A "bye" in this context means "they will be excluded from the requirements." So, if you're flying from certain countries and you're a citizen of that country—e.g. Great Britain—you might not have to give a full print set, but if you're from others, you will. It's sense #1 in this definition. [reference.com]

Re:Which Airports

[Anonymous Coward]

Most like the airports for this will be the same ones as those that are doing fingerprints on exiting the country:

Baltimore/Washington International Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Denver International Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Long Beach and San Pedro seaports near Los Angeles, San Juan's Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport, Miami International Cruise Line Terminal, Newark Liberty International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport, San Francisco International Airport and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

source [dhs.gov]

btw, here's the press release [dhs.gov] where the dhs proudly announces this plan of all ten fingerprints to be shared with the FBI e.a.

Re:Home of the free...

[Chris Burke]

While I am 100% against fingerprinting CITIZENS of this country, I couldn't give a shit less if someone from outside of the US is fingerprinted.

Well that's nice. What is your basis for being against fingerprinting citizens? Perhaps the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 4th Ammendment in particular, motivate your belief?

Well guess what. You won't find the word "citizen" anywhere in the 4th Ammendment or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. They all say "people", and that isn't a synonym for "citizens". When the Constitution means citizens it says citizens.

A lot of people take for granted that our rights don't apply to non-citizens. This is simply non-factual; there are very few of our rights that only apply to citizens. The rest are for everyone.

Diplomatic Reciprocity

[Zaatxe]

Many people don't know, but Brazil diplomacy works with reciprocity in all cases (that's why americans are required a visa to enter Brazil). About 3 years ago, the USA started to photograph every foreign citizen arriving to its territory. Based on diplomatic reciprocity, all americans citizen were also photographed and identified at entering. Then in January 24th, 2004, Dale Robbin Hersh [terra.com.br], an American Airlines pilot decided to have some fun at the brazilian authorities expenses by discretly flipping his middle finger when photographed, as you can see in his pic. He was immediately arrested for disrespect towards authority and released after paying a US$15,000 fine. Back to the USA, he was suspended from his work for some time. Why did he do that? Because the identification of americans was slow, he was tired after a long trip and had to wait about 2 hours in a line to be identified. He thought this identification was bulsh*t (and it really was, the risk of an american terrorist trying to enter illegally in Brazil to do something wrong must be below zero), but the law is the law. And the americans were just getting here the same treatment brazilians were getting in the USA. If you want respect, you have to give respect back.

Re:Nothing for me to worry about

[Shakrai]

Assuming they look at you as you pass by doing your normal business, and assuming that the picture they compare you to is one they have on file in their own system, there is *nothing* wrong with this.

(Sorry for two replies -- I hosed my other one)

I don't have a problem with the officer himself looking at me. Prohibiting that would be foolish and counterproductive. I do have a problem when it becomes acceptable to use facial recognition software to match me against a list of criminals. Why? Because it's only a matter of time until some dimwitted politician gets the bright idea of putting cameras on every street corner.

As I said in my other post I grow weary of granting new powers. Ideally Government should be as weak as possible while still being able to effectively Govern. How did Law Enforcement work without automatic plate scanning cameras, DNA databases, etc, etc? It seemed to do quite well. Therefore I automatically regard any attempt at giving them more power with suspicion.

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion (obviously) but my POV is that you're actually harming what you're trying to protect.

My problem is that it's way too easy to rationalize stuff. People will buy it hook, line and sinker every single time. Especially if you cloak it in the name of preventing terrorism/drugs/child molesters or whatever the favorite bogeyman of the week is. Make a compelling case for why the police need this technology. Not a compelling case for why it isn't an intrusion. You can make that case after you explain why they need it.

I hope I explained my position a little bit better this time around :)

Re:Strong border security...

[forgotten_my_nick]

not to rain on your parade but how does it stop terrorist groups that are American born and already in the country? I'm not just talking about fanatical islamists btw, USA has its fair share of whack jobs across the board.

Also bare in mind that 9/11 hijackers had legit documentation. All the fingerprints I can see doing is matching the terrorist up after the fact.

Re:Home of the *brave*

[b0s0z0ku]

With a US-issued passport, we have a reasonable comfort level that the person is who they say they are. And, we already have those fingerprints on file.

I don't disagree with your basic premise. But AFAIK, the US Government does not fingerprint passport applicants. Maybe they lift them off of the application forms, but I doubt it.

-b.