Fingerprinting at Airports - any objections?

[truthseeker]

Will a wikipedia definition do? There are many types of freedom. Here's the definition of political freedom;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)

According to that, not allowing my to travel without taking my fingerprints certainly reduces my freedom. I no longer have full domination over my public and private life. In other words, taking fingerprints at airports brings us one step closer to a totalitarian state.

How on earth do you get that from that definition? No one is INTERFERING with your public or private life, theyre just looking at a bit of you!

 

[z103]

No one is INTERFERING with your public or private life, theyre just looking at a bit of you!

My fingerprints comprise part of my private life, just as my DNA, details of my medical history and pictures of my genitals also do.
They aren't just 'looking' at my fingerprints, they are storing them.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Guys/Gals I find myself agreeing with some of both sides but one thing bugs me about this - does anyone honestly believe this will make flying safer? Do ye honestly believe that anyone wishing to go and blow up a plane full of people, knowing that fingerprinting is in place, would be caught out by this? I'm no expert but I'm sure someone devious and clever enough to mastermind something like 9/11 would find a way around these things. Meanwhile the rest of us would have yet one more thing to do to satisfy those in authority that we're one of the good guys as we go on our journey - no matter how intrusive or not you think it might be.

 

[truthseeker]

My fingerprints comprise part of my private life, just as my DNA, details of my medical history and pictures of my genitals also do.
They aren't just 'looking' at my fingerprints, they are storing them.

But by the definition you used, storing them does not constitute regulating your behaviour.

 

[shnaek]

But why do you even think things would go 'further' - thats where Im lost?

Up until now criminals were fingerprinted. Now we are talking about the travelling public being fingerprinted. Are we then to move on to everyone being fingerprinted? Thus are we all to be treated like criminals?

Quick question - what is your stance on civil liberties? To me they are a part of the freedom we all enjoy. And fair play on trying to define it because freedom is certainly a difficult thing to define, and a difficult thing to achieve. It's not something to give up lightly.

Id be happy to be questioned. If it turned out my fingerprints were forged Im sure it would be discovered easily enough.

I'm sure the Birmigham 6 thought the same!


And Ceist Beag - I believe it won't make flying safer. It's already the safest way to travel!

 

[truthseeker]

Up until now criminals were fingerprinted. Now we are talking about the travelling public being fingerprinted. Are we then to move on to everyone being fingerprinted? Thus are we all to be treated like criminals?

Criminals are given a warm bed, 3 meals a day and hot water for showers. If we give that to someone in a hotel are we treating them like criminals? I dont think taking someones fingerprints constitutes treating them like a criminal. I think the comparison you made above is quite narrow, you could take any aspect of how a criminal is treated and find that actually most ordinary people are treated the same way - what makes it different is that they are locked in cells in prisons. But no one here has suggested that the general public are to be locked up in that way.

Quick question - what is your stance on civil liberties? To me they are a part of the freedom we all enjoy.

Yes - they are a part of the freedom we all enjoy (within the law of the land in which we live of course) - can you be more specific in your question, I dont have a general 'stance' as such but will answer any specific question.

And fair play on trying to define it because freedom is certainly a difficult thing to define, and a difficult thing to achieve. It's not something to give up lightly.

Well i did not want to just google a definition because you asked me what I thought - not what definition I could find online. It IS difficult to define, one aspect is that I dont see any area in this discussion (about fingerprinting at airports) where my own personal freedom is being compromised. I can still travel through an airport.

I'm sure the Birmigham 6 thought the same!

That case was an exception rather than the rule AND their convictions were overturned later so in fact justice did win through. I agree it wouldnt have been nice for the 6 - but it is not something that is happening to members of the general public every day of the week.

 

[DublinTexas]

A very nice discussion but let’s see this again, Fingerprinting at the airport is not done as a security measurement to stop terrorist or criminals from entering the “secure” area, it is done as a way of identifying that a person who entered the “secure area” with a domestic boarding pass.

The fingerprint is an identification mark here that is only stored on BAA’s system and not shared with anybody else and deleted within 24 hours after the flight is leaving.

At least that is the current status.

Now again the reason why identification is needed is because of the common BAA departure lounge used for domestic and international flights. I personally suspect it’s just so that BAA can route us through the shopping center, but that is my opinion.

I do not think that taking the finger print or picture of a person traveling domestic is a good signal just because they want us to use a common lounge, other ways, i.e. separate domestic gates are more useful.

It’s nothing to do with the window dressing security effort to stop terrorist from taking control of a plane, it is to stop illegal immigration.
The measurement is done so that Person A cannot print himself a domestic boarding pass, enter the “secure” area and then give his boarding pass to Person B who just arrived from a foreign country connecting to a foreign country and is now in possession of person A boarding pass while person A is entering (because he is here legal) the UK again. Person B would not have had a boarder control done in this example and hence enter the UK illegally.

I think we should be clear on this it’s an immigration issue why fingerprints are used at UK airports.

 

[z103]

But by the definition you used, storing them does not constitute regulating your behaviour.

Well, yes they are.
For me to prevent this invasion of my privacy, I refuse to fly to the USA, or airports that take fingerprints. (See first post)
Of course we also have the issue of privacy laws and civil liberties etc.

 

[truthseeker]

Well, yes they are.

How exactly?

For me to prevent this invasion of my privacy, I refuse to fly to the USA, or airports that take fingerprints. (See first post)

Yes I saw your first post and I thought this was pretty extreme. Of course you are indeed exercising your choice and if you feel youd rather not travel than be fingerprinted you have the freedom to make that decision.
But to me thats a bit like hiding out in the hills with a generator, off the grid, eating canned food, making feverish plans to build a nuclear fall out shelter and hide in it with loaded gun waiting for the apocalypse. I just dont see the point.

Of course we also have the issue of privacy laws and civil liberties etc.

What issues are those then?

 

[MrMan]

And with fingerprints, would you be happy to be questioned if your fingerprints brought you under suspicion? Or would you feel more justification was needed than fingerprints alone?

What would i have to worry about really? That also raises the point that more crimes could be solved if we were all printed.

 

[MrMan]

Guys/Gals I find myself agreeing with some of both sides but one thing bugs me about this - does anyone honestly believe this will make flying safer? Do ye honestly believe that anyone wishing to go and blow up a plane full of people, knowing that fingerprinting is in place, would be caught out by this? I'm no expert but I'm sure someone devious and clever enough to mastermind something like 9/11 would find a way around these things. Meanwhile the rest of us would have yet one more thing to do to satisfy those in authority that we're one of the good guys as we go on our journey - no matter how intrusive or not you think it might be.

It might not stop the masterminds, but it might at least stop the nutjobs and less cunning criminals. A lot of it is reactionary and the reason is because there would be an outcry of 'why aren't more stringent measures in place' if another attack happen like 9/11, either way I don't see how a simple procedure should be seen as the beginning of the end or the day we gave up our rights, it is possible to over-react to simple changes and i think not flying to avoid being finger printed is an over-reaction.

 

[Ceist Beag]

i think not flying to avoid being finger printed is an over-reaction.

Agree with that point.

 

[Pique318]

It's funny but what I see here can basically be simplified thus:
"Shure it'll be grand, what do I have to worry about? I haven't done anything wrong"
This is all well and good, but sensitive information pertaining to individuals is always in demand from those shadier individuals, for one reason or another.

As it is, I do not see fingerprinting having any tangible benefit apart from maybe illegal aliens/'undocumented' etc. Those are going to be the main ones to suffer (and rightly so, might I add).

However, I think that what is going to be the natural progression of this is DNA profiling. Now having a fingerprint on multiple databases is one thing, but how would you feel if/when the only way to travel between certain countries is on the condition that you submit to a DNA swab ? It may be alarmist, but then again, is it really that far-fetched ? I suppose it depends on who's the US president, as these kind of measures are most likely to be introduced by them.

I do see this as an erosion of civil liberties, in the sense that freedom of travel is dependent on the surrender of personal data that is not normally necessary to ensure security.

What's wrong with facial recognition ? That's already used afaik.

 

[Sunny]

Wasn't there a American lawyer arrested after the Madrid bombings based on fingerprint evidence that the FBI said was 100% positive until the Spanish authorities revealed another match and the FBI admitted that they were wrong. Think the guy spent a few weeks in jail. These things might not happen very often but in my opinion one case is one case too many. I don't think anyone has made a compelling argument for fingerprinting.

 

[shnaek]

Well put, Pique318. I suspect many people would say that storage of DNA isn't a problem either though.

 

[Pique318]

Well put, Pique318. I suspect many people would say that storage of DNA isn't a problem either though.

Probably not, yet I bet they wouldn't hand over their bank details as quickly.
What about your kids? Would you let them be swabbed/printed ?

 

[MrMan]

Probably not, yet I bet they wouldn't hand over their bank details as quickly.
What about your kids? Would you let them be swabbed/printed ?

there goes that leap again from identifying yourself by fingerprint to 'heres my bank details sir'.

 

[truthseeker]

Well put, Pique318. I suspect many people would say that storage of DNA isn't a problem either though.

They (they being BB) possibly already have mine, Ive donated blood, Ive been in hospital. I suppose they could be cloning me as we speak. Wonder if my other me would take care of the mortgage repayments and bills?

On a more serious note - what might 'they' do with your DNA that you'd be worried about?

 

[diarmuidc]

Because right now as a deterrant to criminals travelling under false identities it works.

Really? Prove it.

I dont live in the UK.

Yes and it could never happen here

Throwing out statistics and quoting worst case scenarios is not going to change my mind on that.

Not interested in facts and figures? What will change your mind? Seeing it in your horoscope ? Have you priest or local TD tell you?

 

[diarmuidc]

That case was an exception rather than the rule AND their convictions were overturned later so in fact justice did win through..

Sixteen years later. Some justice. But who cares, they had a warm bed and 3 meals a day, sure it was like living in a hotel for 16 years