Fingerprinting all travelers departing the US

[Gidan]

The US Department of Homeland Security is set to kickstart a controversial new pilot to scan the fingerprints of travellers departing the United States.

From June, US Customs and Border Patrol will take a fingerprint scan of travellers exiting the United States from Detroit, while the US Transport Security Administration will take fingerprint scans of international travellers exiting the United States from Atlanta.

Biometric technology such as fingerprint scans has been used by US Customs and Border Patrol for several years to gain a biometric record of travellers entering the United States.

But under the Bush Administration, a plan was formulated to also scan outgoing passengers - including US citizens.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/104310,ho ... he-us.aspx

[brinstar]

brinstar easily claims first post

[Tikker]

wow you guys are paranoid

[Drem]

isn't it sad

[ClakarEQ]

So much for freedoms and privacy. I've not read the link but I'm assuming all these prints get put into a national search DB

[Gidan]

Its not specifically mentioned, but you can bet that if your prints are not in the DB already, by leaving the county you will be having them added.

[ClakarEQ]

Personally, I have never been fingerprinted, EVER.

This is directly against what the 4th states.

My fingerprints are owned by me, they are 100% my property, you can't take them from me without cause.

[Narrock]

So, you think that your "right to NOT be fingerprinted" takes precedence over the safety of the country?

[ClakarEQ]

I think the bill of rights and our constitution takes that precendence, yes.

EDIT
You know this one already:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

[Harrison]

Convenient until it's something you disagree with.

[ClakarEQ]

If you are referring to the 2nd and gun debate, you should double check what I wrote.

Over the years here I have been very vocal re: my opinion of the 2nd. However, once the Sup Court IMO ratified the 2nd, thus confirming everyone does have the right to bear arms, you'll see a change in my "chatter".

In the most recent thread here, you will note I never said "ban guns" I never even said ban hand guns. I did say I wouldn't be against a ban, but I also said I am not confident a ban is the right thing and even wrote how uneasy I am regarding some total firearm ban.

So it isn't a point of conveience, it is a point of facts and change of opinion over time after ratification took place.

At the same time, for you, it is equally convienent. You leave me with the assumption you have no issue with this (this thread here) and it being akin to what the 4th implies, yet when there is talk of what "spin" someone may put on the 2nd, the sky falls.

I seriously challange you to find a post, going as far back as you want to go, where I wrote all firearms should be ban in the USA. However do note, I changed my tune when the Sup Court made it's decision re: DC and again, what "I" am calling the ratification of the 2nd.

However I will also admit, that privacy infringement is under constant erosion and for me it is mountains more important that what the 2nd affords our populace.

[Harrison]

I have a problem with this too. (...and not because it affects me, because the government has all of this information on me the day I enlisted anyways)

Saying you wouldn't be against a ban is a fucking lameass copout for saying you'd support a ban.

Semantics won't save you.

[ClakarEQ]

Well I won't knock you on the copout statement, my deal is I'm not going to sit here and lobby my representatives to introduce a gun ban, however if an initiative gets traction, depending on the terms, etc, I would most likely support it, if that is a copout to you, then so be it.

However I'm glad to read we've agreed on something (yet again no less)

[Harrison]

I think if you people paid attention to the things I say now and then you'd see I'm not some opinionless flop.

[Reynaldo]

I dunno. It kind of goes back to what does it matter unless you've got something to hide? I could care less if they grab a fingerprint before I hop on a plane to Europe. Hell they even take your fingerprint entering Disneyworld. Not for any information other than syncing up your park hopper ticket to your person, but still taking it.

[Harrison]

It also goes hand in hand with, "Where do we draw the line?"

If we continuously let things like this happen in the sense of, "What does it matter, if...?"

There will be nothing left of our privacy and freedoms. Power can and always will be abused.

[ClakarEQ]

I dunno. It kind of goes back to what does it matter unless you've got something to hide? I could care less if they grab a fingerprint before I hop on a plane to Europe. Hell they even take your fingerprint entering Disneyworld. Not for any information other than syncing up your park hopper ticket to your person, but still taking it.

That logic could be used against you all the time, like why do you need firearms if we aren't in a state of anarchy or tyranny (but please no more gun talk LOL).
Why can't I have a live video feed in your house?
Why can't I put a chip in your body so we know where you are?
Why can't I install data capture software on all your computers so I can confirm you're not doing anything wrong?
Why can't I have your laptop, ipod, cell phone, etc for a week to confirm all your data is legit?

The first 3 are extreme I realize but they've already tried the 4th one I listed.

Harri is correct and this particular instance, they are breaking the law as it explicitly states in the constitution.

[Tikker]

I dunno. It kind of goes back to what does it matter unless you've got something to hide?

well for me, the issue is more that the US government doesn't have the right to MY fingerprints

I don't care so much if your gov wants to fingerprint all of you, but when you start collecting that kinda detail from people just passing thru that it becomes a bit of an issue

[Drem]

thanks tikker for taking note of what self-absorbed americans can't

[Harrison]

It's our country.

Self-absorbed my ass. It's none of their fucking business by virtue of the fact it's not their country to bitch about.

[Harrison]

Hypothetical:

If I'm going to say, Germany, and they want my fingerprints before I enter or leave I sure as hell am not going to bitch about it. It's not my country and I am merely a guest at most.

[Drem]

it's fucking retarded. there's no way to justify this unless you're a paranoid american

edit: it's not bad enough that the current fingerprinting for entrants creates problems, even as recently as.... three days ago: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200905 ... ss_cbsnews

so now you seriously think we need to step it up to start printing american citizens who want to leave? or anyone that's leaving, for that matter?

[Harrison]

If it bothers them that much they can go suck a dick somewhere else.

It bothers me. I also just don't give a fuck about them as much. It's not their place to complain.

[Drem]

i just can't understand that self-absorbed mentality, i'm sorry. i wasn't raised to be a douchebag asshole that doesn't care about the rest of the world

[Harrison]

It's a developed sense. I stop caring about random people because more often than not they are worthless shitbags.

I don't care if some Canadian is crying about having his fingerprints taken coming into OUR country. Like I said, if it bothers him that much he can stay out. It's not as big a deal for him as it is us. So fuck 'em.

It's our problem to deal with. (and it is a problem)