Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:46:06 +0000 From: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> To: Allan Bowhill <abowhill@blarg.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Personal patches Message-ID: <3FFB56CE.3030109@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040107001001.GA65133@kosmos.my.net> References: <20040106202408.GC63867@kosmos.my.net> <20040106233751.A32387-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040107001001.GA65133@kosmos.my.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Allan Bowhill wrote:
>How so? There is nothing illegitmate, arbitrary, illegal, secret or
>repressive about requiring fingerprints and photos of visitors who come
>across our international borders. It is necessary record-keeping.
>
When they came and took the liberty of tourists, I didn't defend them
because I was not a tourist.... (etc.)
>{Personally I hope genetic fingerprinting ultimately replaces this
>system. This method of identification has proven indispensable in
>catching criminals who would otherwise have gone unnoticed. It works.
>
It worked in a single case you can cite here. Plus, the case you cite
does not concern a tourist to my knowledge, who therefore would not have
been fingerprinted at customs. Therefore, it's not only a sole case,
it's irrelevant. You're also missing the point that defeating electronic
fingerprint scanners is relatively trivial.
>Again, why should we trust?
>
Well, quite right. Thankfully for me you don't. Nobody travelling into
the US with an EU passport, or probably even just on a flight from the
EU, is going to get fingerprinted. Fortunately for the terrorists, most
of their cells planning attacks against the US are reportedly inside the
EU. As making EU citizens do the fingerprint thing would grind all
international airports to a halt and probably impact heavily on US
export business (due to EU businessmen getting uppity), can I just ask -
what's the point of having this system?
>No organization (or nation) with plenty to lose will base it's practices
>on institutionalized trust. It's always institutionalized mistrust that
>makes it possible to conduct business. Like with banks.
>
Institutionalized (sic) mistrust. I like that phrase. It sums up North
America so well. Claim liberty and freedom, but whatever you do, make
sure the Government suspects EVERYBODY! And before you think I'm
US-bashing, my Father is a US Citizen. He would agree you're talking
rubbish.
You're also forgetting when you criticise our criticism that many people
commenting on all this here, from the EU, have lived with terrorism on
their own soil for many, many years - you guys are new to this, whereas
the IRA have almost killed me (and several hundred others) on two
occasions with bombs in central Manchester when I was a teenager. I'm
sure there are people here from Ireland, France, Spain, Greece, Turkey,
Cyprus, etc. who can recount similar tales. Generally, we know what does
work, what doesn't work, what is just hype and what is a genuine
anti-terrorist measure.
This fingerprint system will never catch a terrorist, but will create
even more bad feeling to the US and its citizens, unfortunately. Pity,
because generally I quite like the US and it's people. Terrible choice
in politicians however. *AWFUL* choice in Presidents.
>It's anybody's guess without statistics.
>
Which would be useless anyway.
>The point is to identify and catch people posing as travelers who
>are known to be terrorists, or associated with terrorism. If the
>system helps law enforcement catch other people on the lam, then
>more power to it.
>
Right, so you think the FBI and CIA already have every terrorist's
fingerprint on file already do you? And that it is not trivial to defeat
these fingerprinting systems if they wish to? Or is it just so that
after the event they can say "well, we almost caught them, and look, the
system only cost us a few billion dollars..."
--
Paul Robinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FFB56CE.3030109>