U.S. Begins Digital Fingerprinting In Airports 1174
lemist writes "Cross Match has rolled out digital fingerprinting at major airports in the United States according to MSNBC. It's designed to increase border security. They appear to be using Cross Match's Verifier 300 LC. Note that the actual capture of the fingerprint requires no interaction with the device. It determines when the image quality is excellent and grabs it."
28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
That law will probably be overruled in the next few days, since it wasn't issued by the Brazilian Supreme Court (don't ask... regional courts can issue directives that are valid for all country, and that can be overruled in superior courts... you don't want to understand the Brazilian legal system, believe me...)
The federal government is moving against it and also the State of Rio de Janeiro, since it can have an impact in the tourists flow, since the fingerprinting here is being done manually (cardboards were you put your fingerprint)
The relationship with foreign citizens here is based on reciprocity: i.e., the treatment applied is the same that a given country apply to Brazilian citizens. Eg. frenchs, englishes, portugueses don't need visas to come here, since their countries don't ask for visas from us. Americans need visas since they require visas from us.
That's why the only citizens asked for fingerprinting are the americans: is the only country asking that kind of identification from us.
I agree with this, since is the only way to pressure both governments (US and Brazil) to find some alternative.
I also agree that the law was passed hastily, without giving time to the Brazilian federal Police to acquire a more modern equipment (digital fingerprinting is available here) and allocate more personal to do the job, so american tourists are waiting loooooong time to be identified. It is nasty, but is not personal...
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Interesting)
Which actually raises a good question. What is the US comparing fingerprints against? Do we have terrorist fingerprints on file? I would guess that we don't have too many.
While I love Brazil (lived there for two years) I think this policy of knee-jerk reciprocity is a bit immature. Brazil needs to realize that people visiting the USA from Brazil are far more likely to simply make their visit permanent (illegally) than people visiting Brazil from the USA. Once that situation has changed then we can start talking about lifting visa requirements. Somehow I don't think that Lula is going to make much progress on the matter, but I wish him the best of luck.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
1. The budget for starting this program was between 300 - 400 Million US (i forget the exact figure), but the estimated budget required to make it effective was something like 20 Billion. The question was raised as th where this money was going to come from.
2. There were concerns, as the parent points out, that although the US-VISIT system would be collecting a lot of information on visitors to the US that is currently getting lost, left unprocessed or wildly innacurate, the intelligence databases that the data is being compared to are not up to scratch. Apparently far greater cooperation from the intelligence agencies is required to make this thing work.
3. The system would be good for identifying people who had overstayed their visas or had been deported in the past, but would also penalise people who had overstayed with good reason, for example people who could not leave the country due to illness or some other valid reason. So if you could not take your flight because of an ear infection, you would be in danger of not being allowed back into the country on your next visit.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh gee - remember Sept 11th? Illegals flying into the twin towers and the Pentagon and a field in PA? Murdered thousands? Ring a bell? Definitely have a need to watch out for who is coming into the country. Unfortunately while we happily go along violating our own human rights, we don't have the will to concentrate our efforts and resources on those most likely to be terrorists.
Now, of
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:4, Insightful)
All these new laws wouldn't change 9/11. Stronger cockpit doors can.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush was warned (Score:5, Informative)
Bush should have followed up on the warnings by placing the FBI, State and INS on a higher state of alert (i.e., look carefully at middle eastern visitors and what they are doing). If such a state was in place, the warnings raised earlier in the year may not have been ignored.
Re:Bush was warned (Score:4, Interesting)
Just curious...what were your thoughts when we were recently placed on "a higher state of alert"?
Re:How about.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you see that something else is wrong here? For one, maybe the US shouldn't be training terrorists like Osama Bin laden, the world would already be safer then.
So stop nagging about security, get your head out of your ass, and start thinking about why this trrorism is taking place.. It's just a symptom of a bigger issue and digging trenches or shutting your eyes to reality (and calling it 'security') is not going to help.
What we need is open minds to face the world of tomorrow. Not a reactionary, "we are better than the rest so it's okay for us to kill other people" and then expect that everyone will like you for it.
I won't call you a moron because I don't want to offend real morons.
Re:How about.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The USSR wouldn't have survived without proxy-armies battling its expansion?
What armies and what expansion? Since USSR was founded, Finland separated from it, and the only army that actually fought for USSR Communists was their own (sometimes "helping" governments that didn't ask them, though that was quite rare, and limited to the immediate neighbors). USSR had its sphere of influence, but for the whole its history it didn't do anything to expand it, with the exception of WWII when it became inevitable. Its economy was closed, it could get no benefit from trying to be a robber baron, so its military policy was defensive (and shut up about Afghanistan already, it shared the border with USSR, and was massively messed with by some very hostile groups of people -- not that the situation changed much since then). "Support" of Iraq and other "allies" in the Middle East and Africa was a drain on the USSR, and even now those countries owe huge amounts of money to Russia, that they have no intention to pay back.
US on the other hand, did everything that you accuse USSR for -- supported foreign wars, created proxy armies, expanded its military presence to pretty much everything from Japan to Germany to Cuba, not to mention that its involvement with other countries always ended up providing benefits for American big businesses at everyone else's expense.
I have a long list of things I blame Communists/former USSR government/current Russian government for, but the things you have mentioned just aren't there, and to put it simply, you are ignorant about history.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not perfectly sure, however - please correct if I'm wrong.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
But you should be a citizen of one of those 28 to get excluded, if I've understood correctly. AFAIK, the Sept 11th terrorists weren't, although they'd lived in Europe.
You're missing the point. All the terrorists have to do is get a forged passport from one of those countries and they'll slip through. A security net with tons of holes doesn't do any good.
On a related topic, does anyone know what the Pfa (probability of false alarm) for fingerprint matches is? It would be interesting to take this number, multiply it by the number of people coming into the country every day (subtracing out those from the magic 28 countries) and figure out how many jet-lag weary travelers are going to be in for one hell of a rude shock when they get to America.
GMD
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
See, here's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
OMG, you're right! Well, we might as well do nothing then, rather than take incremental steps to make things that much harder for people to slip through. After all, you wouldn't design a computer network with more than one level of security, why try to protect your borders that way?
If you re-read my post you'll see there are TWO parts to what I was saying. The first is that the system will not catch 100% of terrorists. In fact if some nerd like myself can see a flaw within 5 minutes, I'm sure that the actual effectiveness with be considerably less than 100%.
The second part of my post is prefaced with the words "On a related note" meaning that you are supposed to consider this in conjunction with the first point. The second point is that there WILL be false positives. Some innocents are going to get labeled as terrorists. And that's not too much fun for whoever gets the unlucky draw.
This pervasive "well, it's better than nothing!" mindset that I see so much of these days regarding our counter-terror efforts really spooks me. It sounds as though you're perfectly happy to disregard all those false positives as no big deal or, perhaps, an acceptable cost for some feeling of safety. In designing a system, an engineer will look carefully at the trade off of Pcc (probability of correct classification) versus Pfa (false alarms). Then it comes down to a judgement call, of course. What tradeoff are you willing to live with. The purpose of my original post was to ask if anyone has any feeling for what those numbers are! If we don't, then we're just doing a bunch of bullshit to make ourselves feel good.
And, personally, I won't be feeling too good about sending innocent people to Gitmo.
GMD
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's the secondary issue of the machine's level of inaccuracy. If you do any travelling at all via airline, there's a possibility that you might get flagged as a terrorist, and if you're a frequent traveller, then you have an even better chance of flagged. Small price to pay for the security you might say. Well how exactly would you feel if they stopped someone in your family, told them, "We think you're a terrorist, you're coming with us, and we're going to keep you in this room until we think otherwise, your rights, and your lawyer be damned."
You're right, we must do something, because it's better than nothing, but if the terror level is at Orange even with all this security, then it's probably not very good security. Why as a taxpayer am I paying for all this expensive, ineffective security?
Lastly, it still doesn't change the fact that a terrorist could land in Saskatchewan, rent a car to the border, take a stroll into the states, hop on a bus to some metropolitan area, and set off the dirty bomb in the briefcase he was carrying all that time. And when that happens (God forbid that it does), I'm going to be pissed as hell that I'm sitting in a cell at an airport because some $20 million plus in tax money decided that I was the real threat.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but you are attributing this effect to the wrong cause. You see on 9/11 I found a weird shaped coin on the street. I then said to myself "as long as I have this coin in my pocket no further terrorist attacks will occur on US soil". As you well know since that time there have been no attacks on US soil so it's working as far as anyone can measure.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, you could RTFA and see "Officials have said false hits on the system have been less than 0.1 percent in trial runs." Or, about a 50% chance for a false positive on each 747 coming in.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone recall the little fact that none of the September 11 hijackers traveled under a false identity?
Here's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is not to pick out people who are traveling under false papers, the point is to build a database of foreign nationals. 28 countries are exempt only because the United States could not diplomatically get away with insulting these exempt countries this way. The truth is that if GWB could get away with doing this for US citizens as well, he would. It's all about control.
Re:Here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like many (if not all) of the systems now in place in the US are designed to make it easy for any 'security' to be bypassed, due to poorly designed systems, lack-lustre and uneven implementations, underperforming hardware, and a generally false sense of safety due to the flaws i've just mentioned.
I'd go so far as to say that the US govt is doing more to promote fear in the population than the terrorists do, after which they erode the civil rights of the (undereducated) general population whilst claiming 'We're protecting you'.
Re:Here's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm british, therefore a citizen of one of the magic 28 countries. The UK government doesn't feel a need to fingerprint me. They have no biometric records on me to share with anyone. However, the US government has decided that they need a fingerprint from me, regardless of the fact that I hold a valid visa, have passed a number of vetting procedures and have no criminal record. So I got zapped at immigration. Yes I could have refused and been sent back on the next plane (after what I'm sure would have been a really nice interview) but seeing as I live here in NYC that's not a very realistic option. As a resident of the US I don't feel one bit safer knowing these checks are in place - they're utterly meaningless unless you are preparing for a complete 1984 style total awarness police state. Which leads me to believe that is exactly what is being planned. Which in turn leads me to feel a lot less comfortable about being here. So maybe I should have refused...
Re:Here's why. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a US citizen who lives in Germany. My US state of residence is Texas. So when I went in to renew my driver's license while I was on vacation visiting my parents, the DMV insisted on fingerprints. I had to give up my fingerprints to get a freaking driver's license.
I'm not quite sure how that can harm me, but it really makes my skin crawl. If I had it to do over again without the surpise factor, I would have refused, and done without a US driver's license. I was in the process of getting my German license anyways.
On a related note: does anyone know if there are other states which require fingerprints for a driver's license? Does anyone know what happens if you actually refuse?
Re:Here's why. (Score:5, Interesting)
crypto-gram [schneier.com] issue ???
quote
Fun with Fingerprint Readers
Tsutomu Matsumoto, a Japanese cryptographer, recently decided to look at biometric fingerprint devices. These are security systems that attempt to identify people based on their fingerprint. For years the companies selling these devices have claimed that they are very secure, and that it is almost impossible to fool them into accepting a fake finger as genuine. Matsumoto, along with his students at the Yokohama National University, showed that they can be reliably fooled with a little ingenuity and $10 worth of household supplies.
Matsumoto uses gelatin, the stuff that Gummi Bears are made out of. First he takes a live finger and makes a plastic mold. (He uses a free-molding plastic used to make plastic molds, and is sold at hobby shops.) Then he pours liquid gelatin into the mold and lets it harden. (The gelatin comes in solid sheets, and is used to make jellied meats, soups, and candies, and is sold in grocery stores.) This gelatin fake finger fools fingerprint detectors about 80% of the time.
His more interesting experiment involves latent fingerprints. He takes a fingerprint left on a piece of glass, enhances it with a cyanoacrylate adhesive, and then photographs it with a digital camera. Using PhotoShop, he improves the contrast and prints the fingerprint onto a transparency sheet. Then, he takes a photo-sensitive printed-circuit board (PCB) and uses the fingerprint transparency to etch the fingerprint into the copper, making it three-dimensional. (You can find photo-sensitive PCBs, along with instructions for use, in most electronics hobby shops.) Finally, he makes a gelatin finger using the print on the PCB. This also fools fingerprint detectors about 80% of the time.
Gummy fingers can even fool sensors being watched by guards. Simply form the clear gelatin finger over your own. This lets you hide it as you press your own finger onto the sensor. After it lets you in, eat the evidence.
Matsumoto tried these attacks against eleven commercially available fingerprint biometric systems, and was able to reliably fool all of them. The results are enough to scrap the systems completely, and to send the various fingerprint biometric companies packing. Impressive is an understatement.
There's both a specific and a general moral to take away from this result. Matsumoto is not a professional fake-finger scientist; he's a mathematician. He didn't use expensive equipment or a specialized laboratory. He used $10 of ingredients you could buy, and whipped up his gummy fingers in the equivalent of a home kitchen. And he defeated eleven different commercial fingerprint readers, with both optical and capacitive sensors, and some with "live finger detection" features. (Moistening the gummy finger helps defeat sensors that measure moisture or electrical resistance; it takes some practice to get it right.) If he could do this, then any semi-professional can almost certainly do much much more.
More generally, be very careful before believing claims from security companies. All the fingerprint companies have claimed for years that this kind of thing is impossible. When they read Matsumoto's results, they're going to claim that they don't really work, or that they don't apply to them, or that they've fixed the problem. Think twice before believing them.
Matsumoto's paper is not on the Web. You can get a copy by asking:
Tsutomu Matsumoto
Here's the reference:
T. Matsumoto, H. Matsumoto, K. Yamada, S. Hoshino, "Impact of Artificial Gummy Fingers on Fingerprint Systems," Proceedings of SPIE Vol. #4677, Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques IV, 2002.
Some slides from the presentation are here:
presentati [itu.int]
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Informative)
The response from the right, of course, has been to blame Clinton again.
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they also moved around the USA with "impunity". In fact, they used USA based training facilities to learn how to fly planes. They also used internal *not* international flights.
So, finger print and photograph all internal passengers first, please. Put your gun totting marshals on all intenal flights, then if you find all that acceptable extend it to international flights (most European countries already have had way better airport security than the US has for a long time).
Re:28 countries exempt (Score:3, Insightful)
His intention was to destroy the plane before it arrived at its destination.
Yeah (Score:3, Funny)
If you want my fingerprint to fly... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be mad (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Damon,
Re:I think it's good. (Score:3, Insightful)
For a government to verify identity by means of passport examination is one thing. To keep personal, biometric data on file, however, is entirely different and something that most governments should not consider doing to their own citizens. Should other countries really accept that the U.S. government has more data on their citizens than those other countries themselves?
No invasion of privacy? Bull! If you really think so, please go down to your local precinct and volunteer to have your fingerprint taken
Re:I think it's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to get in your personal vehicle, drive across several state lines, pay cash all the way, never stay in a hotel, and not have the capability to endanger anyone else as a part of that travel (other than lousy driving) then please feel free to do so.
If, on the other hand, you want to get on an airplane for a domestic flight be prepared for some screening. Why? Because you are not getting on a public air carrier with a bunch of other people.
By the same token if you're flying internationally then be prepared to furnish your identity on entrance/exit from all countries along the route. Its just the way it is in the real world.
Re:I think it's good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for you! I personally don't have the need or desire for lethal weapons likely to be used to commit crimes. All I'd like is to visit my American friends and see more of your beautiful country.
Says Anonymous Coward. Anyone else see the irony of the situation here? Anyway, I will think long and hard before visiting the US again, even though I am from one of the 28 excluded countries, since customs and immigration seems to be ignoring their instructions at will and just fingerprint the hell out of everybody anyway. I visited relatives in what was at the time held as part of the Soviet Union with less invasion of my privacy back in the 80s. It's really sad to see such a beautiful country fall victim to such totalitarianism.
The reason I am "bitching" about it is that this is a highly unusual procedure conducted on foreign nationals merely for the fact that they are just that, and I hope more countries follow Brazil's excellent example. Perhaps we could also get American travellers to wear something... a little yellow star, say, with the word American printed on it, you know, just in case, just so we know who they are.
Re:I think it's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's going to come...
What are you going to say when foreign countries are all going to start doing this to all foreigners entering their countries?
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill hypocricy
DNA is VERY different (Score:5, Insightful)
DNA on the other hand holds a load of information in and of itself.
Re:DNA is VERY different (Score:3, Informative)
Unless the fingerprint is accompanied by your photo, and a complete record of who you are - as it just happens in this case.
DNA Registry (Score:3, Insightful)
Once this registry with very current
Re:Similarities between Dubya and the Fuhrer..?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Similarities between Dubya and the Fuhrer..?? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem was that Germany wasn't soundly defeated in WWI. The only thing that kept the western front from collapsing in 1918 was the timely arrival of American Troops. Germany had already eliminated Russia from the picture, and they were preparing to finish off the French when peace came. What happened was that
....And? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:....And? (Score:3, Informative)
What next ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What next ? (Score:3, Funny)
For some people, that would be an incentive to travel more.
-cp-
President Bush to Liberate Alaska! [alaska-freegold.com]
Lineup (Score:5, Funny)
Easy to bypass. (Score:4, Insightful)
next up... Verichip (Score:5, Insightful)
Supposedly, (supposedly) DoD was looking into this as a replacement for military dogtags, and the BOP (Bureau of Prisons) was supposedly looking into it. Now sounds far fetched but according to the companies press releases: September 29, 2003 - Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADSX), an advanced technology development company, today announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, VeriChip Corporation, has retained the services of Stanley "Stan" L. Reid, a longtime technology industry executive and former congressional aide with extensive experience and wide contacts in Washington, D.C., to market VeriChip(TM) secure identification solutions to federal agencies.
...
Since 1996, Mr. Reid has served as president of Strategic Sciences, a Washington, D.C.-area consulting firm that specializes in marketing advanced technologies to the federal government. Mr. Reid has particular expertise in selling new, introductory technologies to government agencies, including the Departments of Defense (DoD), Energy (DoE) and State, as well as the agencies that have been incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security. (source [adsx.com])
Just think if they decided to do away with Social Security, or made this a standard for newer borns a-la vaccinations... Oh well that's why I'm glad I support the war on terror [politrix.org]
Re:next up... Verichip (Score:3)
Welcome to America (Score:5, Funny)
-psy
A quick parody... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought they needed some better, and funnier, subtitles [thomasscott.net].
Orwellian... (Score:4, Insightful)
Brazil strikes back! (sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
To make mater worse, it was decided by a judge from a small state. The government, and not the courts, should decide on matters of international relations, and so I think this absurd will not go on for a long time. Even so, the Brazilian authorities are working very hard to look stupid, surpassing the American government.
Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of) (Score:5, Informative)
*IF* you're actually a Brazillian perhaps you should know your own country better before spewing forth.
Brazil has laws, passed by the national government, that Brazil treats foreign visitors the same way their nationals get treated by them. So the US starts fingerprinting Brazilians then the Brazilians start finger printing US visitors.
All the local court did was confirm that this law applied. They didn't "make it up" or anything silly like that.
Re:Brazil strikes back! (sort of) (Score:3, Insightful)
The fingerprinting hardly takes any time whatsoever, and early reports are even showing that it speeds up the process because the guys who check you out don't have to worry that
Yep. (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone 14 or over is required to have their prints taken, and chcked every time they enter the US.
The article is right; it really didn't take that much longer than usual. As long as it doesn't slow the already crappy process to go through at 5 AM after a 12 hour flight, it doesn't really bother me.
Reminds me of the early days of Dehomag (Score:5, Informative)
Again we are seeing a watershed moment in the efficiency, security and thoroughness of states ability to enforce their policies. Lets hope that this time the population will gain a proportional increase in control over the agenda of the state.
The alternative will be no less than a repetition of history.
I hope they wash their hands. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, how many people will touch this same couple of cm of space within the same day, one right after another. I hope they have considered a way to keep this surface sterile - perhaps a UV backlight or something. Otherwise this sounds like an international virus hub.
Department of redundancy department (Score:5, Funny)
I just got printed ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's almost business as usual at the airport, customs officers just have two new toys: the fingerprint scanner and a webcam. The added hassle is less than 20 seconds. Left index, right index, look at the camera, done.
Do I think it's a Good Thing? Not really, do I mind? Not really, after all, I'm not a terrorist!
Re:I just got printed ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither am I, but you know what else I'm not? A convict.
So long as the states are figerprinting and taking mugshots, I'm not setting foot there. Plenty other countries to visit.
Psychic stunt (Score:3, Interesting)
how funny is this article that unwillingly proves the inefficiency of that measure.
After a short presentation, we have the list of countries that are exempted from having their tourists and/or workers scanned. Which countries are these ? Europe, Japan, Australia. I can understand for the two latters, but if September 11th proved something, it's that terrorist networks are deep-rooted in Western societies, especially Europe and the US. So, guys, you still have until October to make a great deal of this measure.
Plus a nice snippet in this paragraph : The travel data are supposed to be securely stored. Oh, Yeah.
The funniest thing is that people do believe in that kind of crap. They think it will make their country more secure. They think that preventing a crime or other legal issues -(Oh, Yeah)- charged person will prevent them from having some other non-beared people bombing towers with suicide planes. Or maybe it's the governement that initially thinks it will make the people more confident. Until the next time. But for now it's working. Psychological assault, well done.
Apart from that, there are remarks to make on a more general scale :
Again, I'm not trying to depict a black and white landscape. It's not the Arabs versus the Americans. But indeed it has some things to do with the global relationship of the West with them. Think about it ; we've been playing the geopolitic bastards with them for more than a century now. How may they feel ?
Regards,
jdif
Reminder : I'm not Arab :)
Exempt doesn't mean "Exempt" (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically this exemption is for white people of European descent in the end...
I won't bother mentioning the frightening parallels this brings to mind...
First impression of the US... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government has already exploited that chance by forcing all foreign visitors to fill out an insane form on the plane, asking among many, many other mostly bizarre things
Re:First impression of the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways, the first time I saw that form I too was curious, so I asked a lawyer-friend about the rationale of asking questions that everyone will say no to. Apparently, that's the idea. You say no, and then sign the dotted line saying that everything is true, under penalty of arrest and perjury. So if you happen to be a terrorist or spy, they can pick you up on lying on your immigration form, and then get more time to get a real case. It also makes it much easier to deport you.
Remember Al Capone: he may have been famous for the Mob, but he got nailed for tax evasion.
This is complete crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Before it was 'This is a picture of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers' now it will be 'This is a picture of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. These are the fingerprints of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. This is the retinal print of Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. This is how many hairs he had on his left butt cheek. This is how many hairs he his on his RIGHT butt cheek....'
The point is all you REALLY needed to know was that he was an Al-Quida sleeper agent, and they didn't know that.
Just saw this in Atlanta (Score:3, Informative)
Four days ago I took LH444 from Frankfurt am Main to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta, and I was surprised to see this, uh- system in person.
The fingerprint scanners were pretty snazzy, but the cameras at each officer's desk looked like cheap spherical plastic webcams ziptied to even cheaper-looking lectern microphone holders.
As a US citizen and ostensible taxpayer ;) I'm actually somewhat impressed they considered off-the-shelf consumer products. OTOH, I don't feel any safer, but a more-expensive camera would have no effect on that feeling.
Has anyone else seen these? I'm curious whether these cheap cams are strictly an ATL thing - which would be strange considering it's the biggest airport in the country - or if this is a standard observed at the other ports of entry.
'Digital fingerprints'? Is there another kind? (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then the other thing that is blowing my mind is how come Brazil is having such a problem with this. I can understand that they feel a little singled out, but this reciprosity seems a little extreme. It is not like the US is singling out Brazilians only -- just those countries were we have the Visa-waiver program in effect.
This is seriously a non-issue.
joke's on us (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to know why, just think about all those military contractors that Bush was going to hook up with "missile defense shield" contracts ($100s of billions - trillions). After the WTC planebombings, they couldn't convince anyone the #1 threat was missiles. So they turned their proposals and whitepapers into "TerrorWar" marketing and "Iraqmire" lobbying. Do you think all that Pentagon biz development just went away? They need that money! And they're getting it. But they don't have actual TerrorWar products, so they're just keeping up the smokescreens and scapegoats while they retool. By the time we catch on and get tired of just rounding up foreign looking people, their systematic abuse of every possible fringe group will probably have produced actual nuts who will follow Osama bin Laden's career highlight. Then the contractors will be able to say "I warned you", and keep business rolling. Unless we start calling them on it, and stop playing along by watching their TerrorTV and taking them seriously.
Not so bad (Score:5, Funny)
Still, this should effectively put a stop to anyone attempting their second suicide bombing! And that's no worse than most of these anti terror programs.
Are there any terrorists left? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has dealt with the problem. bin Laden was at one point Minister of Defense of Afghanistan. Right before the US crushed that government flat. No country is going to tolerate "terrorist training camps" aimed at the US for years to come.
So lighten up already. Yes, there will be incidents in future. But they'll probably come from some completely different direction, like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was done by 100% Americans. We'll have to deal with that when it comes.
With all these Orange Alerts recently ("They're going to attack on Xmas - no, New Years - in Rapahannock County - no, LA - no, Vegas") it's beginning to look like al Queda is down to a couple of guys mouthing off to get attention.
crash ola (Score:4, Interesting)
Cold War Security (Europe)v. WWIII Security(today) (Score:5, Insightful)
There were several terrorist incidents when we were stationed overseas - I witnessed one, my family avoided one thanks to our chronically late mother (Thanks, Mom!), and some escaped Basque nationalists stole our car (that was not fun). Three in three years if you discount the occassional ass-beating by local teens who hated Americans (well, us anyway), a riot (my bad), and the consequences of unwise activities by myself and fellow American teens (often misguided patriotism or plain mischief).
Nevertheless, the other 99.5% of the time we were as safe and sound as bugs in a rug, living in a great country with kind and friendly people, immersed in a rich culture, surrounded by millennia of history, and had a fantastic time. Those are the times that I remember and cherish - going to the Prado, walking through El Escorial, marveling at the Valley of the Fallen, visiting the tombs of Saints, roaming through ancient castles, seeing the Hanging Gardens, touching Queen Isabella's jewelry box (it was about the size of my Shuttle XPC), meeting Queen Sofia...and tons more great experiences.
Even at the height of tensions between American military folks and Spanish civilians (during the biological warfare accident/linseed oil poisoning of olive oil) we - the Americans - were never subject to the invasive 'security checks' foreign visitors experience coming to the United States.
Fast forward exactly 20 years from January of 1984 (when we settled into our new stateside duty station)...
The Patriot Act I and II, fingerprint scanning, CAP fighter and Apache patrols over American cities, "orange" terrorist alerts, "war on terrorism" with ever-shifting definitions of "terrorist", jailing of American citizens without charge for years, propoganda in American media ---
After one terrorist incident in three years (albeit a terrible one) wrecking the peaceful tranquility of the nation's daily domestic tragedies, America is moving toward a police state. Even as hopping Spain was with machinegun toting Spanish military dudes and several terrorist incidents (bombings, shootings, mass poisonings), 99.5% of the time everything was cool and there wasn't nearly the level of hysterical anti-democratic overreaction we've seen here in the United States. Nobody got on TV to talk about how terribly vulnerable to terrorism we were; everyone knew it. Nobody went out to fingerprint, track, and data-mine everyone in the world - you just needed proper ID; match face to picture and signature to signature.
All the security in the world isn't going to stop terrorism; just ask Israel - it probably has the best-trained and equipped security forces on the face of the planet. By their own figures they stop 90% of suicide bombers, but nobody can stop them all. The Palestinian resistance has demonstrated its capability to carry out a 'successful' bombing on a daily basis - killing a dozen or more civilians and wounding scores - terrorizing millions.
Even if we could wall up everything, put cops on every street corner, monitor and surveille whoever we wished - we cannot stop terrorism, not without addressing the root cause that motivates people to kill themselves and a bunch of people. And I'm not talking religion here.
I'm talking a sane foreign policy that doesn't make enemies out of everyone we walk over or steal from to 'protect our national interests' - or enemies of the 'friends and allies' with whom we used to divvy up the spoils.
Instead, we need a policy that simultaneously roots out genuine terrorists while helping those who have a legitimate beef with us for having trampled all over them. We need to focus on reducing the environment that breeds terrorists and terrorism, not fueling it.
A European & African perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
In the bad old days of South African Apartheid, the white government legislated all kinds of things, pumped millions into the security forces, and spent huge chunks of the budget on trying to prevent attacks by "terrorists" from the banned liberation organisations such as the ANC and PAC. What good did that do? Sweet blue blow-all. All it did was challenge those organisations to be more creative about infiltrating their cadre's and hitmen & women into society, and the bombings continued, as did the agitation. Leaders of these organisations were identified and incarcerated, to no avail. It just didn't work, despite the fact that it turned the country into a police state.
Likewise, there is SBFA that the American administration can do to prevent determined terrorists from getting into the country and committing acts of terrorism - nothing at all. Personally, if I were an American citizen, I'd be protesting about the pointless waste of my tax dollars.
The only way the USA can make itself less of a target, is to change its arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world: realise that not everyone wants to live like an average American, and not everyone defines freedom and democracy in the same way as the USA does. In the same way that the freedom movements in South Africa were rebelling against the arrogant tyrany of the white government, who considered its world-view to be normative, there are nations out there who see the USA's attitude in much the same light.
I don't in any way condone the use of violence as a means of protest, and what happenned on 911 was just not on, not for any reason, but once again drawing a parallel with what happened in apartheid South Africa: put yourself in the shoes of the average oppressed black man for just a moment. Your back is to the wall: there's no more room for manuever. What option do you have but to resort to violence? Especially if that is all the government understands?
In this respect the USA (and Tony Blah) is supremely guilty: the WMD ruse was just an excuse to use an option that should have been an absolute last resort. What options do those nations have where the USA and other western nations have interfered but to resort to violence?
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, then, over Christmas, the Bush regime (Heil Dubya!) raised the terror alert etc... saying an attack was likely.
Now let's see here, they claim this, which, to me, means ALL these new security measures have been a waste of time, effort and money, and done nothing other than strip American's of more and more of their rights. If there's a "clear and present danger" of an attack, the administration is admitting that all this nonsense at airports is rubbish because it has not stopped the potential for attacks.
In short: All this security at the airport is like the old adage.
"This rock in my hand keeps away all the lions."
"But there are no lions here."
"Exactly."
Let's look at it this way and assume the "threat" is real. The fingerprint system is ONLY as good as the intelligence it's received. If Joe Terrorist goes through and has never been fingerprinted before... Well woop de doo, when he flies a plane into a building, at least we'll know what his fingers looked like before they burnt up in the wreckage.
It's a useless security measure.
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:3, Funny)
How will George Bush know which sorts of whorls mean you're a terrorist?
I'm sure God will be good enough to tell him.
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Since there hasn't been a repeat of 9/11, it seems like the security precautions are working.
There are no elephants on my lawn, I guess it must be because the pepper I put down every night keeps them away.
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this REALLY about protection of US citizens? Then why does the current administration act the way it does, if this is the goal? I sure don't feel more secure, rather the opposite.
From Sorrows of Empire: An Interview [zmag.org] we see that the administration is undermining security :
And the effects are not one might like :
yes it's invasive, yes it tacks on an additional 15 seconds, no we don't care if you don't like it
Oh yeah, the administration sendt that message too:
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:4, Insightful)
We are without question in greater danger of terrorist attacks today than we were on September 11 two years ago. Afghanistan has descended into an anarchy comparable to that which prevailed before the rise of the ruthless but religiously motivated Taliban.
Are they describing the country that just had constitutional convention? The one that just agreed upon a constitution?
The United States will feel the blowback from this ill-advised and poorly prepared military adventure for decades. The war in Iraq has already had the unintended consequences of seriously fracturing the Western democratic alliance; eliminating any potentiality for British leadership of the European Union; grievously weakening international law, including the Charter of the United Nations; and destroying the credibility of the president, vice president, secretary of state, and other officials as a result of their lying to the international community and the American people.
Blowback? Are they considering the fact that Libya has invited in inspectors to verify the end of their WMD programs blowback? Notice that N. Korea has invited some "independent" inspectors to have a look at Yong-byon. What about the Saudi crack-down on Al Qaeda in that country? All of this is bad? As for the EU, they can't even keep to the terms of their own agreements. As for the UN, note that it is the organization that passed 1441, as well as many other sanctions against the regime of Saddam. France and Russia were quite happy with Oil-for-Food program though, given that they got to skim off so much in "Administrative" fees, so one might question who was risking credibility.
Don't get me wrong, war is a terrible thing, and one can only regret the loss of innocent life and destruction. The U.S., however, didn't start this conflict. It would be insanity to wait for the totally compromised UN to solve the problem for us, after the enemy announced his intention to attack us, and did so, several times.
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. Outside of Kabhul and a few other areas, Afghanistan is ruled by brutal war lords. And they are feuding among themselves.
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they describing the country that just had constitutional convention? The one that just agreed upon a constitution?
The Taliban are gaining territory again, there are large parts of the country that are still under their controll.
The USSR fought the talibans for years before giving up and leaving them the country (back when the US called them freedom fighters...go rent Rambo III and that Timothy Dalton James Bond...Liscense to Kill I think), and the US bombed the shit out of them and then moved on to bomb the shit out of Irak...
The U.S., however, didn't start this conflict.
List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II:
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-02
Re:What a terrible thing (Score:3, Insightful)
And for the pros
Re:Meanwhile... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Clever device (Score:5, Insightful)
What problem does it solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing who is on the plane or in the country would not have prevented September 11. They didn't know who was going to hijack a plane.
The scary part is focusing on foreigners isn't going to solve the problems. They end up harassing innocent people, and causing lots of bad will, but doesn't make it safer for anyone.
I can think of a few recent issues that really shocked & upset the US.
9/11
Columbine
Unabomber
Oklahoma city
The Sniper
Hmm, looks like picking on foreigners might not be the most effective way to decrease terrorism.
Ain't the "first" step (Score:3, Insightful)
They take your fingerprints, and do what with them after the background investigation is complete? File 13? I think not. It goes into your "permanent record", and I ain
Re:This is the first step... (Score:5, Interesting)
It probably will start as a voluntary, convenience measure - that proverbial carrot. There are enough people who do not care, or do not understand what they are subjected to. Many people today are just consumers of goods and services, and they will gladly take 10% discount on airfares (or something) for using a fingerprint-based identity check.
Once part of the population is hooked, that will be played against the rest of people, placating them as "OBL's helpers" or something else, equally ridiculous and equally effective. A "Red Corridor" can be set up for refusniks, for example, and it will be much slower. The attrition will move the plank from the original 30% to maybe 80%, since people will just submit and continue with their lives.
The rest, 20% or less, will be then forced into the new groove. A mandatory body cavity probing, complete with X-ray, in every airport would be a good start; after some time, cumulative dose of X rays will be deadly anyhow. And to clean things up, a little-known rider will be inserted into an agriculture bill to completely outlaw travel and some other activities unless positively ID'ed with biometrics.
You may say it is too dark a future. I say, if it can be done, it will be done.
Facist/Communist (Score:5, Interesting)
(Yeah, yeah, f--- Godwin's Law. Remove the racist purges and replace zealous worship with apathetic inaction by the masses and you've got a good model of where we could be going if Bush were honestly an evil man instead of being mostly misguided. Read German history. The parallels are terrifying, and yet reassuring in that we did not step off that chasm that presented itself so many times.)
Re:Still a big hole in the short term (Score:5, Interesting)
The waiver skips fingerprinting only if you are visiting briefly, with only sightseeing purpose, or for very limited business activities (like a trade show.)