We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Coming soon to an airport near you

How the Soviets would have loved this kind of technological capability:

A US requirement for visitors to be fingerprinted and photographed is being expanded to include citizens from America’s closest allies.

The move will affect visitors from 27 countries – including the UK, Japan and Australia – whose nationals are able to visit the US without a visa.

Though even if the technology had been available to the Soviets they would not have been to afford it. But Western democracies can afford it so these fingerprint-reading machines will be coming soon not just to an airport near you but, in due course, a bank, a supermarket, a sports stadium and just about everywhere else.

I was so impressed with all those books written in the 1990’s that confidently predicted that the new age of digital technology would empower the individual and neuter the state. The implementation is having exactly the reverse affect.

48 comments to Coming soon to an airport near you

  • Andrew X

    It IS empowering individuals, like the creators of this and other blogs… as it empowers the state.

    By all means, keep an eye on the latter, but let’s not forget the former.

    As for the unfortunate spector of our British allies being fingerprinted and all, well, it is disconcerting and unfortunate to say the least.

    But let us not ignore the reality that the US is not concerned about Nigel and Ian, but has very good reason to be afraid of Hassan and Jabril, Londoners both, who have been infected with the murder virus, not to mention Richard (Reid). And we cannot forget the role that leftist views and policies on immigration and multiculturalism, roles that have been particularily the case in the UK.

    Yet another example of “do-gooders” getting the exact opposite of what they proclaim, in this case mistrust between peoples of the earth, while refusing to acknowledge any role in such a situation coming to pass.

  • The American embassy in Estonia has already had this technology installed for several months; the ambassador, Joseph DeThomas told me that the fingerprinting technology has actually sped up the visa process tremendously for them by cutting out a lot of red tape.
    Now, considering that U.K. citizens don’t have to pay the $150 fees that poor countries like the Baltics citizens pay to visit America, it doesn’t sound like you have it too bad.

  • Dan

    I think I have to agree with Andrew X. Good christ, I can sit down at my desk with $1500 worth of equipment and produce things my parents could only dream about when they were my age. I pay all my bills, do all my banking and vent my spleen via the internet. I make more money than my parents ever did and have more free time.

    All that is not to say we need to watch out for Big Brother, but we’re not being neutered at all, I wouldn’t say. Plus, the technology is good enough now not to get in the way horribly, and it will only get faster and less obtrusive.

  • Julian Taylor

    So that excuses the US for its actions against its closest ally?
    Maybe we should go the whole hog and make sure that all foreigners get chipped, in much the same way as one would to a dog at Battersea Dogs Home …

  • Susan

    No American thinks that indigenous European people are a threat to us. But don’t Captain Hook, the Tipton Taliban and Sheikh Half-Baked both carry British passports? This is aimed at them.

    But everyone else has to suffer because of the few.

    It’s the same domestically in the US too. We are not allowed to “racially profile” airline passengers. So 75-year-old grannies get randomly searched along with 22-year-old men named Akbar.

  • Don’t blame us, blame the terrorists. We are in a world where individuals can cause massive destruction.

    I know of no privacy-preserving way to fight terrorism.

    There are a couple of bright sides to some of this surveillance and ID information:

    1) It may help reduce problems with identity theft.

    2) The camera systems, if they do the right stuff with cryptographic watermarking, etc, can serve the function of Heinlein’s “Fair Witnesses.” This can only improve the effectiveness of policing, a benefit to the innocent as well as the guilty. After all, witnesses are notoriously unreliable but people still get convicted by their testimony.

  • Tedd McHenry

    This can only improve the effectiveness of policing, a benefit to the innocent as well as the guilty.

    John:

    Cameras, correctly deployed, are a benefit to the proportion of the innocent who are needlessly harassed or wrongfully accused, in that they can help prevent their becoming wrongfully convicted. But they’re a disadvantage to all the innocent in that they represent a loss of freedom and privacy for everyone.

  • Verity

    Andrew X and Susan – I can’t think why you would, but if you want an excellent emetic, go to the BBC’s Have Your Say, in which 99% of the correspondents say they will now never visit the US because they do not wish to spend their money in a fascist state. Oh, not all of them! Some referred to a “police state” instead. Doubtless they will be taking their next vacation in Zimbabwe, instead.

    But either way, America is contemptible. (Run by a cowboy, you know. One poster wrote, in that triumphant way of people with a moral trump card to play, made serious note that he would like to know the names of the companies behind this isometric technology and – get this – “the names of their major shareholders and officers”. Oooh – err! Bush, Cheyney, Rice and Rumsfeld probably sold off some of their vast shareholdings in Halliburton to fund their investment in this technology they are corruptly forcing on American airports.)

    One young prig from Wales – if I could have reached down my monitor and wrung his scrawny, acned neck, I would have donned rubber gloves and done so – said he had been looking forward to visiting the US on an upcoming trip to perform with his church choir, but on Monday morning he was going to have to inform the choirmaster that he was not able, in good conscience, to visit a police state. The number of ignorant, stupid people in Britain seems to double overnight, every night.

    As Susan and Andrew pointed out, Britain has made itself into a centre for terrorists – we just arrested nine British born Pakis last week in London for hiding half a ton of fertiliser that is used as a bomb accelerant – and we don’t expel state-supported hate-mongers. These people are adept at getting hold of forged passports and other papers. The isometrics are targetted at them, not us. It is a shame that Britain’s complicity in the breeding of terrorists has caused the United States to go to this expense.

  • Tedd McHenry,

    I don’t understand how my freedom is lost because I appear on a camera. After all, historically city people were in public view whenever they left their homes – there were other people around.

    What is it that I cannot do because of the cameras? Commit a crime? That’s not a loss of freedom.

    I have long believed that privacy is the most over-rated freedom. The “right” to privacy has moved from its natural law position (in your house, “in private’) to all sorts of area where privacy advocates try to apply it.

    It is not at all clear to me that this focus on privacy is that important. I have yet to see any convincing argument to that effect. You might want to read this for a twist on this issue.

    Most arguments I have heard for privacy rights involve abuses that others might make of information they glean. I believe that there are ways to protect that information, methods that if they fail indicate that all our other freedoms are gone at the same time.

    Furthermore, I think terrorism is going to force us to very seriously reconsider a lot of things, because I see nothing but increasingly deadly terrorist events in our future, and no trend to stop it.

    If that is true, the issue is not whether to give up freedoms, it becomes how to triage and manage loss of freedoms. Terrorists have already significantly attacked my freedoms, by forcing necessary security measures, and keeping me from taking my family to places I consider dangerous (Israel, for example).

    Also, please consider what will happen if a really bad terrorist attack occurs – say a nuclear weapon in downtown London or Washington DC or New York. It would be a good idea to have already figured out what to do when citizens rise up and DEMAND safety (and they will do that, ideology be damned). That is what my link above is about.

    But in any case, please explain why I should be worried about recording surveillance cameras of public places. I don’t get it.

  • Guy Herbert

    “[…]a benefit to the proportion of the innocent who are needlessly harassed or wrongfully accused[…]” Only to the extent that they can avail themselves of fair legal process and discover the evidence. The trouble with needless harrassment and wrongful accusations by agents of the state always has been manipulation/suppression of evidence.

    It may help reduce problems with identity theft. Possibly, depending on your point of view on the “problems”. To the extent that it reduces the quantity of identity theft, though, it increases the problems of detecting it, and the difficulties for the victims of identity theft or those who simply lose the relevant ticket to their own lives.

    Compact identity is a convenience to the administrator; but I’d suggest its effect on normal social life is generally underestimated. We are used to having multiple or diffuse personae: personality and identity are not the same thing. When we are all neatly labelled we may find we are no longer the people we thought we were.

  • JK

    “But in any case, please explain why I should be worried about recording surveillance cameras of public places. I don’t get it.” – John Moore.

    There are more than a few reasons: state cock-ups, the potential for state conspiracy, and employer-employee relations (this goes far beyond issues like recreational drug use, as the trend encouraged by the state is for employers to take a closer interest in “work-life balance”).

    However, the most important point really has nothing to do with innocence before the law. It is to do with a broader transformation of culture in a surveillance society. To be watched, and recorded, has a subtle impact on the way in which we all behave. This is especially so when we know that the surveillance is “necessary” to fight terror. The camera functions as a constant reminder that we cannot rest at ease. It is a classic example of terrorising ourselves, doing the terrorists’ job for them: not by introducing police tyranny but more subtly by reorienting everyday life around fear.

    Surveillance cameras are different to simple existence of public space, where we can expect to meet others. Surveillance breaks down the fluidity between the public and the private. I am sure you can imagine many circumstances when you are with your friends “in public” which you would not wish to be broadcast to the world – if not, you might want to get out more.

    The private sphere gives us space to try out new things, work out new ideas, and develop new “experiments in living”. Even where these do not break the law, we do not expect to be immediately held accountable to polite society for these experiments.

    But much of this activity necessarily takes place in public space. The fluidity in the boundary between public and private means that what is acceptable can dynamically evolve. Different localities can find their own conventions and equilibrium. With cameras everything is on the record and instantly open universal public accountability. And remember that this is an age when the state takes an unprecedented interest in petty behaviour like smoking and diet (however much worse in other respects, totalitarian states never did this).

  • Julian Morrison

    It is empowering individuals, that’s why the state is panicking. Mass fingerprinting is panic. It serves no actual functional purpose, not even for “big brother”.

  • Verity

    Julian – In the case of American airports, of course it serves a purpose. If a terrorist is traveling on phony documents, his real name will come up with his fingerprint and he’ll be taken into custody. OTOH, knowledge that this exercise exists, may serve to encourage terrorists to look to countries which are not as vigilant in which to operate.

  • Julian Morrison

    Verity: which would be all very well if terrorists needed fake papers to travel. Except, they mostly don’t.

  • Verity

    Julian – I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying a known terrorist can get into the US on his own passport?

  • Julian Morrison

    Verity: I am saying that an unknown terrorist can get into the US on his own passport. He won’t acquire any criminal record until it’s already far too late.

  • Verity

    Julian – this exercise seems to be to catch people travelling on false passports, and catch them it most assuredly will. It will also provide a record to send to other countries who request it. It will be highly inconvenient for an aspirant terrorist to have his isometric record on file in US.

  • Verity

    Further, I’d rather have a vigilant government like the United States than a government headed by a liar who is making immigration deals on the sly with the prime minister of Romania – doubtless the purchase price of that prime minister’s vote for when the glorious EU’s leaders elect a “president – and suspending the civil servant whistle blowers. Rather isometric records at the airport than immigration lawyers with – and I quote – suitcases full of bogus immigration applications, directed to Manchester, where no one in the department can read Romanian.

    Rather tough controls on who gets admitted to the country that a “roof tiler” who had only one leg and an “electrician” with missing fingers, both of which have been documented. Tens of thousands of them have been admitted, without the merit of their cases even being checked, on a nudge-nudge, wink-wink of Britain’s prime minister.

  • Julian Morrison

    Somehow I find myself less than terrified at the prospect of being swept under and assimilated by rampant Romanian cultural imperialism.

    Let them come and get jobs, I say. Blair seems to be doing good by accident.

  • madne0

    Just a monumental waste of money, in my opinion. The terrorists can just go to Mexico and get a ride across the Rio Grande. Just like all the millions of illegal immigrants do every year.

  • Tedd McHenry

    John Moore:

    This turned out to be longer than I expected, so let me begin by saying that I’m not strongly opposed to what is being proposed by the U.S. government (i.e. the photographing and fingerprinting of non-visa-bearing visitors). The justification — reducing terrorism — is strong. U.S. citizens aren’t being targetted. For me that is an important distinction; I have no problem with a government treating foreign visitors differently than it treats its citizens, since foreign visitors can choose not to visit. Finally, it’s being proposed as an interim measure until the full visa program is implemented. I’m aware of the slippery slope argument that it won’t be interim at all, but for simplicity I don’t want to get into all that just yet. Let’s stick with taking what is being said by the U.S. government at face value, for the moment.

    There are a good many holes in the arguments put forth in the article you linked to. I’m sorry that I’m not willing to take the time to write about them all. However, I agree with the statement, “the thinking and argument about how to implement such a state with minimal damage to democracy must start now.” You and I are currently engaged in that. That is not, however, a justification for actually implementing such a state now. If anything, it’s an argument against it, as the statement clearly implies that we don’t yet know how to do it.

    I don’t understand how my freedom is lost because I appear on a camera. After all, historically city people were in public view whenever they left their homes – there were other people around.

    There’s a good discussion of that point in this article by my local civil liberties association. Refer to section B, “Privacy in a Public Place.”

    But in any case, please explain why I should be worried about recording surveillance cameras of public places. I don’t get it.

    Although it’s perhaps not immediately obvious, I don’t have to be doing anything illegal or even “wrong” to be concerned that I might be observed doing it. This is particularly true when considering cameras in public spaces such as city streets. Consider, for example, visiting a nightclub known to be frequented by gays or lesbians. If I visit one, and assuming I wouldn’t want it to be generally known that I did — for whatever reason — I run the risk that someone I know will see me. But I may judge that the risk is one I’m willing to take. If my actions are being observed by police cameras, I have no way of knowing if my visit will come back to haunt me later if, for example, someone in a position to view the tapes decides they want to make my life difficult. That sort of thing does happen, and has happened to people I know, often for very trivial reasons. For example, I know someone who — after winning a substantial amount of money in a lottery — was routinely harassed by a particular, jealous police officer. The very fact of having to worry about such a thing is a constraint on one’s liberty; actions by the state (such as public cameras) that increase the ability of state agents to take such action are a serious threat to our liberty. The fact that knowing cameras exist would almost certainly repress certain kinds of perfectly legal behaviour makes it even less acceptable.

    If you find the gay nightclub example not to your liking, consider someone visiting a palm reader, a weight loss clinic, an adult literacy center, a non-mainstream religious institution (or even a mainstream one, for that matter), or any place they might not want all and sundry to know they’ve visited. Or consider the case I experienced yesterday, in which (in a public park) I ran into a former friend of my family who was recently released from prison after serving a sentence for murder. A tape of that encounter could be used against me in a variety of ways that would be damaging. Had I known there was a camera present I would have felt and behaved quite differently in that situation, and that is the very definition of an invastion of my privacy. The repressive effect on both the behaviour and the psyche of the citizen is a key issue here.

    In my country (Canada), when a person is charged with an offence the police are required to inform them that anything they say, “can and will be” used against them. This is so that it’s very clear to the person that their relationship with the state has suddenly changed dramatically. In effect, placing cameras in public places announces to all citizens that their relationship with the state has suddenly changed dramatically.

  • Brock

    America must police its borders with freindly nations because they refuse to police their own. It’s the same reason we’ve had to tighten the border with Canada – they won’t police their sea ports and airports to the standard we require.

    As for surveilance, I don’t mind.

    To be watched, and recorded, has a subtle impact on the way in which we all behave.

    I noticed something growing up – some kids changed their behavior when the teachers were watching, and others did not. Guess which was which? The only kids that changed their behavior were the bullies and the rule breakers – kids like myself who were polite and played nice with each other just kept on doing what we were doing anyway.

    The only people who have to fear surveillance are those were going to commit crimes or terror anyway – I weep not for their inability to break the law now.

    As for abuse of the system – well it’s possible, for sure. But all systems and tools are open to abuse. We must watch ourselves, and police ourselves. No one is going to do it for us – and leaving the job undone is just being a ostrich in the sand.

  • Tedd McHenry

    Brock:

    The only kids that changed their behavior were the bullies and the rule breakers – kids like myself who were polite and played nice with each other just kept on doing what we were doing anyway.

    You’ve left a lot of ground uncovered. There’s a vast space between rule breaking and “polite” play. And, in the adult world, there’s a great deal of disagreement about where “polite” play begins and ends. It is that space that’s at risk when public cameras are introduced.

  • Verity

    Julian – “Somehow I find myself less than terrified at the prospect of being swept under and assimilated by rampant Romanian cultural imperialism.”

    As Steven den Beste said in a different context: “Whoosh! Right over the head!”

    Whether it’s one-legged gypsy roof tilers or electricians who “lost” their fingers god knows how, the point is the prime minister of Britain has engineered this lawless situation.

    He has compounded his malfeasance by forcing the head of the immigration department to resign. Bev Hughes is a repulsive, Nulab cow, like Harriet Harman, Patrician Hewitt and on and on and her having her yap shut will improve the air quality of London, but she was nevertheless lying in order to do get a pat on the head for doing her master’s bidding.

    But behind the loss of control of Britain’s borders is one Toneboy, working the angles. “OK, we’ll give you, say, 50,000 fast track roofer and electrician – meaning their preposterous claims won’t be investigated – immigrants to Britain, oh, and by the way, for the president of the EU thingy, I’m assuming you’re onside?”

    This is the prime minister whose two chief duties, in both of which he has deliberately failed, are to maintain law and order in Britain and to protect Britain’s borders.

    Ted McHenry is correct: At American airports, US citizens aren’t being targetted. America has a duty to its citizens to protect their country’s borders. Anyone who doesn’t want to be fingerprinted and have a retina photo taken is extremely free not to travel to the United States.

    And this has been forced on Americans by the fact that other countries have chosen not to protect their own borders and not to implement their own laws against terrorism.

  • Guy Herbert

    No; not forced on America at all. Just good old fashioned US isolationist fear of foreigners. (Reminds me of the good old boy I chatted with once who said the problem with September 11th was that it was a World Trade Centre–if they hadn’t told foreigners about it it never would have happened.)
    It won’t stop one terrorist. (If you don’t intend to leave as much as a finger, then fingerprinting’s not an inconvenience, if you do you’ll probably drive from Canada), but it will certainly inconvenience a lot of people, give officious officials something more to be officious about, and discourage me for one from going there unless I find myself with no choice.

  • Verity

    Guy – I think during all the time I lived in the US, I never once encountered “good old fashioned fear of foreigers”. Occasional ignorance, certainly – as in reference to Yurrp as a country, and people who told me they’d “never been abroad” – meaning they’d never been outside their state – but fear, no. Perhaps you flatter yourself.

    With this programme, Americans are protecting America and American citizens, which they are charged with doing.

  • John Thacker

    This strikes me as at least partially a consequence of the Church Committee separation of foreign and domestic spying. That is, since the NSA and CIA are forbidden from spying upon US persons (which includes anyone physically inside the US) without a special warrant, ongoing intelligence gathering is necessarily disrupted when someone enters the country. This caused several watched known terrorist suspects to be lost before 9/11. And thus, this attempt to keep track of who is entering the country to prevent losing them.

    We will, of course, see how long the legal restrictions on us of this data stay in place.

  • Jacob

    Verity:
    “… this exercise seems to be to catch people travelling on false passports, and catch them it most assuredly will. It will also provide a record to send to other countries who request it. It will be highly inconvenient for an aspirant terrorist to have his isometric record on file in US.”
    You have much faith in the US govmint and it’s ability to run thing efficiently. Way too much. This is not practicable, it will turn out being a big mess and hussle, and very little in the way of terrorism prevention. Like everything govmint does. A grandiose and costly scheme with little chance of succeeding.

  • Tedd McHenry,

    One of the problems I have with this debate is that the proposed CCTV systems I have seen are not appropriate for the goals I suggest, nor are they properly protected.

    The system in England is (properly) criticized because the operators of the systems use it for voyerism. A system I would propose wouldn’t have operators, or they would be forbidden from changing zoom/direction of the cameras except in the case of a criminal complaint. With modern computer technology, watermarking, and cryptographic techniques, this should be adequately protectable. Furthermore, the recordings should be digital, redundant, and stored under legal seal for future use by both the police AND the accused. Erasing a bit of voyeuristic misuse should not be possible.

    Likewise, such a system needsboth judicial and citizen oversight and automatic recording of all uses (and tie ins to police dispatch/recording systems) so that misuses are likely to be detected.

    Most of the problems you cite result from preventable misuse of the information as discussed above. Furthermore, the systems I am aware of are used to try to catch criminals in action, which has proven not particularly effective and prone to abuse. I see a more important use in creating archives.

    In the future, as AI techniques get much better, it might be possible to use these systems closer to real time, but again, they need to be designed to prevent abuses. I could see such a system tied to cell phones so when someone dials 911 (or whatever the emergency is for other countries), the cameras in that area are automatically brought to the attention of operators, who would ideally be the police and fire dispatchers. In the US the 911 localization systems make this imminently practical.

    You mention the issue of your equivalent of the US Miranda warning. Police world wide use unmarked cars and undercover officers while searching for criminals. They do not have to give those warnings, and neither would the cameras.

    The main issue is not loss of privacy, but abuse of the information acquired by such systems, which while related is a different situation.

    Two points in summary:

    1) We have two groups discussing this: police who haven’t a clue how to use technology to protect civil liberties, and whose main interest in any case is to catch criminals.

    2) Civil libertarians who are totally against the systems or who put conditions on the use of the systems that are unreasonable.

    I would suggest a different approach. Get smart people who are interested in citizenry protection AND abuse prevention and have them do their best to come up with such systems.

    I have yet to see that, and the result is going to be what is typical when an issue becomes polarized: the systems won’t be deployed as often as they should be, but the ones that are deployed will be far more prone to abuse than they should be.

    My point in raising this issue in my previously cited (and rather old) blog article was to try and get folks, especially those familiar with cryptography and technology, to think about how to do it right, rather than leaving it to the police.

    My justification for this is based on the following predictions:

    1) Terrorism is going to become more common and more deadly.

    2) Citizens will DEMAND safety and governments will be hard pressed to satisfy that demand, resulting in hasty solutions that won’t work that well and will result in more loss of civil liberties than would happen if this approach were used.

    Also, please don’t discount the issue of having an ability to recreate visual history in an objective manner. There are many non-abusive uses that can be made of that information, from establishing alibies for the accused, to connecting criminal conspiracies, to analyzing non-crime related safety issues, to scientific and health research..

  • Guy, “Just good old fashoned US isolationist fear of foreigners”

    Me: Guy is engaging in just good old fashioned blind stereotyping of Americans. I live in a tourist state. I don’t find people afraid of foreigners. I used to live in Kansas. Same way. Give up the long outdated stereotype, eh? You’re as bad as the guy you claim to have talked to.

    As far as not stopping one terrorist, you need to understand security not as an absolute mathematical issue (like Schneier’ seems to do), but as a statistical shield more like a minefield backed by other forces. The idea is to improve the odds and to force the terrorists to use more exotic methods to do simple things like travel. Anything that makes it harder for them costs them money and provides more opportunities for them to be detected.

    The system need not catch a single terrorist for it to reduce terrorism.

  • Gazaridis

    The problem is, Europe ‘exported’ the 9/11 terrorists. We did nothing about them, just let them sit here planning. There isn’t really much inconvenience to it either – it is just 10 seconds, and you don’t even get any ink on your fingers. Ultimately, the US has a right to know who is entering their country. There are issues with being fingerprinted (seeing as they can be planted on objects), but I have no problem at all with them photo’ing me on my way in. I just wish our government cared about border security.

    On the issue of CCTV, if they actuallyt helped cut crime there’d be a case. However, good street lightning has been shown to much more effective at cutting crime, let alone being cheaper and there being no civil liberties concerns.

    And my favourite commen’t on the BBC’s “have your say” –

    After reading the entire log of entries, the blatant hostility to the USA is crystal clear. Now I am sure we are doing the right thing. 15 seconds is too inconvenient? Then stay home!
    Joe, New York

  • Verity

    John Moore – Absolutely! Why are so many people offended by America’s determination to secure her own borders? Euroweenies, every one of them. Every one of those countries has ceded control over its own borders to some supranational body run by god knows who, and it pricks them in the pride when they’re confronted by facts: other countries do not regard losing control of the borders as either desirable or inevitable. In Europe, they do as their governments tell them. Other countries have the absurd Shengen agreement which effectively does away with national borders, but Britain kept hers. But Tony Blair lusts after open borders and, knowing he wouldn’t be able to justify it to the British public, lied and did double deals behind the electorate’s back, contravening, in the process, his own government’s stated policies.

    Gazaridis – Yes, the Have Your Say site is quite illuminating, isn’t it? The self-righteous one worlders, in a desperate bid to save their cheap little egos, use the site to jeer. How too amusing that the Americans have declared a war on terrorism. When the next war breaks out in Europe (in around 25 years) I hope America has the sense to say, “We don’t do other people’s wars any more. You do it. Have a nice day.”

  • The problem is, Europe ‘exported’ the 9/11 terrorists

    And there I was thinking they were Saudis who got visas from the US government’s “let in any Arab who wants to pay our universities lots of oil money” program. But no: they were evil Euroweenies all along. Makes sense…

    More generally, (most) Americans think their country is better than every other country in the world – and to be honest, compared to most countries they’re right. This deal has nothing to do with Europe’s insecurity (as if it were easier for terrorists/illegals to get into Europe than the US!), and everything to do with Americans viewing the world as America-which-is-good vs Foreignia-which-is-bad. Which it’s their perfect right to do.

    All that said, I’ll be slightly annoyed that I’m treated like a suspect next time I go to the States, and I’d certainly urge the British government to follow Brazil’s lead and give out the same treatment to Americans…

  • Gazaridis

    They spent several years in Europe (particularly Germany and the UK) before going to America. That was what I meant by export. And given the UK’s completely lax immigration and illegal passport-factories Im not surprised the USA views its arrangement as a potential backdoor for terrorists. And remember, they are fingerprinting every single person coming in (except through canada, for the time being). If the EU made a point of fingerprinting every single person who came in to the EU, the USA would probably return to a more open-borders arrangement with us. However, before now someone from a third country could get in to the USA easier by going through Europe and picking up a fake passport, avoiding the fingerprint checks.

  • Andy

    Missing from this discussion seems to be the difference in perception about fingerprinting. Here in the US, finger printing and the use of hand/finger scanners is so common, we don’t really think about it. Some places require a thumb print when using a check (cheque for you people over there :). A thumbprint is required here in California for a driver’s license. Everyone who joins the military is fingerprinted. My handprint is needed to enter the datacenters at work. Want to work as a security guard? Get fingerprinted (for the background check), &c.

    I visit Japan about 3-4 times per year. If the Japanese were to fingerprint me on the way in, it wouldn’t bother me in the least bit.

    Fingerprinting, while not 100% foolproof (ok, I’ve seen Mission Impossible too many times), is one more stone in the wall of keeping terrorists out.

    You already sign your entrance documents (visa, I-99, etc), what’s the difference between a signature (easily forged) and a thumbprint (not so easily forged)?

  • Susan

    John b,

    Stop giving “political asylum” (not to mention generous welfare benefits) to peole like Abu Hamza and you won’t have to worry about being treated like a criminal next time you vist the USA.

    As for fingerprinting Americans, be our guest. We couldn’t care less. However it would be rather stupid of you Brits to fingerprint Americans while letting Akbar and Fatimah from Cairo in without a second glance.

  • Bishop

    John B. wrote:

    I’d certainly urge the British government to follow Brazil’s lead and give out the same treatment to Americans…

    As an American who travels to Europe frequently, I would have no problem with that. I would, in fact, welcome such a move were it applied at all ports-of-entry covered under the Schengen convention.

  • Verity

    Susan speaks the truth, as always. Answer her, John B.

  • Andrew X

    Verity points out up top there the nitwit brigades “not coming to the States in good conscience” because it “is a police state”, etc.

    As opposed to a snotty, “Oh, yeah, F-you, stay home!” or whatever, I would say more politely that it would be (is) too bad to lose tourists, economically and otherwise… but we are close to categorically giving up trying to convince people to like us. If Mr. Wales there cannot tell the difference between the kind of police state represented by Stalin, by Ceaucescu, by Castro, by Mugabe, and the United States, well, nothing we say or do is going to change that, and we are less than inclined to try.

    By the way, I saw some details, but cannot quote, about the rights, or lack therof, of those caught in the Spanish post- 3/11 dragnet. As I understand it, they are far more draconian than anything that has happened in the States, or even Guantanamo.

    Not that I’m weeping over the rights of Islamo-fascists in Spain, but what’s that I hear about Spain being a police state now? Ah, what I hear is… crickets chirping over the silence.

    I changed my mind.

    Hey, Mr. Welsh lefty….. F-you, stay home!

  • Susan

    Andrew X,

    The Dutch government has institutioned random search measures to root out terrorists. In other words, no warrant, no probable cause, no nothing. You could be walking down the street minding your own business, and a Dutch policemen could pull you over for a search right then and there.

    But it’s the US that’s a “police state.”

    Typical BBC-orchestrated anti-American hatefest over there at “(Don’t) Have Your Say. ”

    Notice they didn’t do anything about the Rawandan government’s change that the French orchestrated the Rawandan genocide. No anti-French hatefest put on by the BBC over that — but it would be if the charges were against the US.

    More typical nonsense by the lovely “(Don’t) Have Your Say” team is their current discussion going on over the ethnic cleansing in the Sudan.

    No comments allowed (I sent them one, for instance) of the fact that it European oil companies are serving in Sudan at Khartoum’s pleasure and moving in on oil fields in the South as soon as they are cleared of the inconvenient Southern Sudanese.

    However if this were being done by US oil companies you can be sure the “Have Your Say – as Long as You Agree with the BBC” team would be posting plenty of condemnations of the US.

  • Tedd McHenry

    John Moore:

    Your suggestions regarding improvements to the design of camera systems and procedural constraints on their use seem well thought out, and would certainly be an improvement on the kinds of systems I have seen proposed. I’m all in favour of a hypothetical discussion about how such a system could be implemented.

    Nevertheless, such systems still represent a violation of liberty, for the reasons I explained above (which you have yet to address). And I remain unconvinced that it is justified, both because I regard the threat of terrorism as less serious than you do (based on our private communications, not on what has been stated here), and because I regard the potential for such systems to improve our ability to prevent terrorist acts as less than you do. In other words, I evaluate the cost higher than you do and the benefit less.

    But I welcome any arguments that might persuade me otherwise. I’m certainly no expert on the technology, or on police and intelligence operations. And if I’m wrong about the terrorist threat I want to know it.

  • Verity

    Susan – (Don’t) Have Your Say. V good! I have given up sending comments in, not wishing to waste further time in (Not) Having My Say. Even if I use much milder terminology than is my wont. However, I’ve just had an idea. I am going to start posting rapidly leftie moonbat comments and see how many get run.

  • Susan:

    Hamza has done nothing illegal in the UK, and would be -even harder- to arrest and/or deport if he were in the US (thanks to your troublesome constitution/freedom of speech thing…).

    He’s a scumbag, certainly, but claiming the rules on that sort of thing are looser in the UK than the US is simply xenophobic nonsense. Actually, not xenophobic – implying the UK has more freedom of speech than the US is flattering, if untrue…

    Also, the idea that Egyptians find it anything other than *very difficult* to get into the UK is even more inaccurate. Immigration rules for non-Commonwealth, non-EU countries have long been very strict.

    Anyway, whatever. You’re entitled to do what you want at your borders – but this is another issue that’s going to help puncture the deluded belief that many Brits have about America having any special affection for us (ironically, this is a belief which benefits America far more than it benefits Britain – but it’s your decision whether or not to destroy it…)

  • Verity

    john b – I believe the majority of Americans do feel they have a special relationship with “us” – the indigenes. It’s Mohammad and Ahmad they can’t seem to quite relate to.

    Another point re the fingerprinting – Muslims practically all have the same name. This means checking passenger manifests is a nightmare. I am surprised they are not installing their machines at the departure gates overseas rather than at Arrivals. Or maybe they are, but I didn’t see it mentioned.

  • Susan

    John b: “Hamza has done nothing illegal in the UK, and would be -even harder- to arrest and/or deport if he were in the US (thanks to your troublesome constitution/freedom of speech thing…).

    He’s a scumbag, certainly, but claiming the rules on that sort of thing are looser in the UK than the US is simply xenophobic nonsense. Actually, not xenophobic – implying the UK has more freedom of speech than the US is flattering, if untrue…”

    What a load of specious tosh! Of course you narrow it down to the Hamza case and ignore everything else. So the Tipton Taliban are just regular guys, eh? The Pakistanis who sheltered the half-ton of inflammable fertilizer are just regular fellows too. No need to worry abou them at all. Not to mention those Algerians who murdered the UK policeman when the police got wise to their ricin poisoning plot.

    Yes, we should all just relax. These folks are traveling on a British passport and therefore they are our good old “allies.”

    Jesus Christ on a freakin’ pogo stick, what time does your flight leave back to Planet Naive?

    They don’t call it “Londonistan” for nothing.

    Regarding the “special relationship” — the BBC is having a far more negative impact on it than any US security measures possibly could.

  • You raised Hamza as an example, so I responded using him as an example. I thought that was how people tended to debate things…

    The recent lot of British-born Islamist bomb plotters (if guilty) are more closely equivalent to John Allen Mohammed than anything else. I don’t think that making entry to Britain difficult for ordinary Americans would be a sensible response to the Beltway sniper case.

    And of course, the Algerians in Crumpsall didn’t have British passports; nor did the 11/9 hijackers. This is an argument for checking nationals of suspicious countries who’ve arrived on flights from Britain, but I wasn’t disputing that this would be sensible.

  • Hey, don’t blame us. Your EU beauros were the people who couldn’t implement a self-authenticating biometric smart passport scheme in a four year timeframe. And as we in the U.S. sit by, every month or two brings us a new story about France “losing” a couple thousand or so blank passports. Until some steps are taken to prevent passport counterfeiting / forgery, putting up with Prodi’s whingeing seems like a pretty good compromise from this side of the pond.

    By the way, on the first day the program was running for the non-visa waiver nations, at a mere dozen or so airports, they caught a couple dozen people who were banned from entering the U.S., including one guy with over a hundred warrants for fraud, under sixty assumed names. Fearless prediction: within a year I’ll have to give a digital fingerprint and photo when I go to Europe.

  • Markop

    Its not about the quickness, inconvenience of the technology, but rather that it provides authorities
    with the ability to track your travels, spending etc etc
    they know more and more about you.

    Such information could be used to bad use as well as good use. What controls are there that fingerprints scanned at airports dont get used by dodgy cops etc to frame innocent people… In the past it would have been how did your fingerprints get there if noone has your fingerprint. Now that would change as your fingerprint would be on a database. Just hope that database has adequate security protection and doesnt get in the hands of the wrong people.

    Whats worse is it makes you feel like a criminal even though you didnt commit a crime, unless you consider being a non-US citizen a crime