Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:16:02 +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: <3FFC6902.5010603@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040107185229.GA67808@kosmos.my.net> References: <20040106202408.GC63867@kosmos.my.net> <20040106233751.A32387-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> <20040107001001.GA65133@kosmos.my.net> <3FFB56CE.3030109@iconoplex.co.uk> <20040107025601.GC65133@kosmos.my.net> <3FFC0066.4090704@iconoplex.co.uk> <20040107185229.GA67808@kosmos.my.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Allan Bowhill wrote: >Fingerprinting would probably offer better verification of your identity >for our purposes. I say probably, because it's better to have the >information in hand rather than to trust a 3rd party for the same thing. > It as equally valid as a passport. The difference is, if I steal your passport, you know about it and can have it voided so when it gets scanned at customs, I get arrested. If I steal your fingerprint, what you going to do? >I am hard-pressed to believe that the EU has control over >%25 of the U.S. economy. > You mentioned the 25% figure. I did not suggest that the EU was contributing to that full 25%. >If you want to try sanctioning us for taking protective measures that >probably benefit your own security as well, be my guest. I'll be reading >the papers. We'll see how far that gets. > You're missing the point. Not only do they not benefit EU security, they don't benefit US security either. >:>:Right, so you think the FBI and CIA already have every terrorist's >:>:fingerprint on file already do you? >:> >:>They have some, >:> >:Where from? How did they get those then? > >Probably from EU (and other) intelligence agencies, interpol. Some >from U.S. military and intelligence operations overseas. Some from >domestic sources. > And how exactly did they get them? I'm not being funny, but I happen to know quite a bit about intelligence and how law enforcement with relation to terrorism has traditionally worked. The only people they have the fingerprints of that they suspect are terrorists are currently being detained in Cuba. Do you think they just walk around Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia dusting glasses in bars? Or perhaps the terrorists voluntarily supply them to the CIA to make the game more fun? >I would not be suprised if we already have access to fingerprints of UK >citizens, not to mention those in other EU member countries. If so, I >can understand why EU passport holders are exempted from the >fingerprinting procedure. > I can guarantee you that you don't unless there is a specific threat from a specific known individual. The UK and EU data protection laws would basically mean that any action taken by passing those fingerprints around en masse would ensure several politicians and civil servants would not only go to prison, but could in theory stand for trial for treason. The only exception is where Interpol have definite intelligence, in which case the traditional method of distributing photos and using fingerprint for secondary authentication is fine. As it is, any terrorist who suspects his fingerprint to be known to the international law enforcement authorities is more than capable of defeating the system for very little cost. >:>and will get more with the help of this system. If >:> >:How? You think they'll have "Terrorist" under "Occupation" on their >:passport? > >They won't have to. The system will make the connection. > How? You keep saying that the US already has the fingerprints of who they and that it's "obvious" how it will all work, but how? The point is, with the slightest bit of analysis you have to concede that this system benefits nobody but the PR guys at the Whitehouse and the Department of Homeland Security. Being seen to do something is better than not doing anything? >Actually, the "preferred method" is to highjack U.S. jets fully-loaded >with fuel that leave U.S. airports bound for other destinations in the >U.S. The fact they are loaded with fuel is what makes them a bomb rather >than a projectile, which is why it's the "preferred method". > You are out of date, which suggests you don't really know what is going on. Yes, that is how 9/11 was conducted. However, British Airways and Air France has been cancelling flights left right and centre over the last couple of weeks. The main reason is that on a long-haul flight from Heathrow or Paris to LA, the aircraft still has plenty of fuel when it gets to the US borders - in fact it has about the same amount as a flight leaving NYC would have heading to LA. And it normally has plenty of US citizens on it to boot. The plan is also to detonate an explosive on the plane without warning apparently. One BA flight was cancelled last week because it was suggested a female passenger was going to explode a device that she was carrying through security concealed inside her vagina. I think there might be some FUD going on here, but the threat now seems to be from EU airlines. Like I say, we're used to it though, which is why we're not sending over flying bombs... >I expect if an international flight was highjacked just before landing >we would force it to land somewhere else, or simply shoot it down. Not >a pleasant prospect, but within our right to do so. > No, they'd just explode it without warning. No hijacking required. So, how exactly does fingerprinting at borders help there then? -- Paul Robinson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FFC6902.5010603>