Fingerprinting at the Border

[Hussar]

Just read an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail about the Americans fingerprinting and taking pictures of foreigners at the border. I have some reservations since there are 26 countries (mostly European) left off the list and well, how hard would it be to get in through a Euro country?

That being said, there were two things that really caught my eye, the first being:

Called US-VISIT, or U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, the program will check up to estimated 24 million foreigners each year, though some will be repeat visitors.

And the second, down near the bottom of the article:

A person whose fingerprints or photos raise questions would not be turned away automatically. The visa holder would be sent to secondary inspection for further questions and checks. Officials have said false hits on the system have been less than 0.1 per cent in trial runs.

Sounds good doesn't it. .1 per cent false hits. Well, less than that. So we'll be generous and say .01 per cent. That's still 1 in 10 000. That means of the estimated 24 million people coming in (yes, I know some of them will be the same people, but that means they might get nailed twice), 2400 people per year are going to be mis identified. Or, to put it another way, almost 7 people per day. And that's being extremely generous mind you. The actual number could be significantly higher than that. All on the off chance that you might get a terrorist.

Isn't this what the terrorists want? Don't they want to disrupt our way of life to the point where we will give them what they want simply to leave us alone? Isn't the goal of a terrorist to instill terror? By creating a "fortress mentality", aren't we just playing into their hands?

The rest of the article can be read here: www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040105.wairp0105/BNStory/International/

[Merkuri]

Although we just started the year 2004, I feel like here in America we've started the year 1984.

I heard about this on the TV news yesterday morning. The newscaster said that although the fingerprinting database they're using is large that this system probably won't catch terrorists who haven't been fingerprited or photographed. "Probably" won't catch them?? It won't catch them, period. It's not like they can run a fingerprint through a computer and say, "Gee, this looks like a terrorist's fingerprint, see this whorl there? All terrorists have that. Let's bring this guy in for questioning."

We're resorting to racism (or, actually, predjudice based on country of origin, whatever the term is for that) to try to screen out terrorists, and not just with this new fingerprinting system. Excuse me, this is America, isn't it? The land of immigration and tolerance? More and more lately I'm being disgusted by the actions of my country.

[Galadon]

It is a starting point so of course there will mistake. The option is just to let in who wants to come in and let the terrorist bomb what ever they get to.

[Sharess]

I can see why the US is doing this but still I think it hurts our reputation as being the land of the free

[khyron1144]

The terrorists we are most afraid of at this time are of a particular race and ethnicity. Turning everyone away or refusing to land planes form the Middle East doesn't seem to be a viable solution. Subjecting them to additional security measures at an airport, while unfair and not likely to make us popular, will provide additional security for this country.

Do you really want them to get through the net that one time they have an actual WMD, rather than appear prejudiced?