Personal patches

[Paul Robinson]

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