DHS To Grab Biometric Data From Green Card Holders 248
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Nextgov:
"The Homeland Security Department has announced plans to expand its biometric data collection program to include foreign permanent residents and refugees. Almost all noncitizens will be required to provide digital fingerprints and a photograph upon entry into the United States as of Jan. 18. A notice (PDF) in Friday's Federal Register said expansion of the US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program (US VISIT) will include 'nearly all aliens,' except Canadian citizens on brief visits. Those categories include permanent residents with green cards, individuals seeking to enter on immigrant visas, and potential refugees. The US VISIT program was developed after the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks to collect fingerprints from foreign visitors and run them against the FBI's terrorist watch list and other criminal databases. Another phase of the project, to develop an exit system to track foreign nationals leaving the country, has run into repeated setbacks."
Reader MirrororriM points out other DHS news that they're thinking about monitoring blogs for information on terrorists.
US citizens will be next? (Score:2, Interesting)
Give it a couple of years and another homegrown terrorist. The only thing holding them back is that citizens, uh, vote!
Great... How much longer till 1984? (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't effect me as I am a citizen. That said, this is getting ridiculous. This data doesn't do DHS any good for terror tracking as there has been research suggesting that the overwhelming amounts of information is a hindrance rather then a benefit. All it's good for is when the DHS, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. decide they don't like you, they can dig through the data to find any trivial issue to drag you into an interrogation room and work you over.
Thankfully, with Obama becoming president, the odds of you getting Gitmo'd have reduced drastically. But, don't think that the three lettered thugs with badges will let this option be removed from them so easily. Only time will tell. I hope they reduce the base to rubble when we leave so it can't be easily reopened.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting worse than the old USSR? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the fear of being asked for "Your papers?" in the old USSR?. This is going to be just as bad - this junk needs to stop. How you you feel as an American citizen, when going into another country, and being fingerprinted, retinal scanned, etc.
Lack of privacy, unreasonable search, etc..... I say no way.
Immigration experiences to US - prints, bah. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been to the US numerous times, all on business trips (I get paid to travel there). Anyway, back in 2003, Dallas, on first trip ever, I was basically waved through...not so bad even coming with an completely empty, unstamped passport.
Unfortunately, ever since then, on multiple trips (Immigration checks at NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston) the fingerprints have been the least annoying part.
When the US-VISIT scheme was introduced, I went through the DHS website and looked into the privacy and data storage implications. Basically the PDF docs on the site showed such a horrendous architecture that I was pretty confident that my fingerprints will be safe in bowels of a system that probably won't ever really work (and I'm not a US taxpayer so I don't care that much where their money goes).
This was confirmed on my arrival to PHL - I thought that since I've been on multiple visits before that the officer probably has all my info on her screen the moment she wipes my (machine-readeable, not yet biometric) passport.
Guess what? I have scandinavian letters in my name (ääääööö). The officer asked me under what name I'd like to enter the US - should she type in my name with ä => ae or ä => a conversion. I gave the ä => a version since that's what everyone is in reality using... but kinda felt a bit let down of the awesome border security procedures...I'm starting to realize where all the Usama/Osama problems stem from. I thought that they'd at least use, say, the passport number if not the "code" field as primary key...At least if on some trip I land in trouble I can just claim "No, it's just a misspelled name, I'm really that other guy..."
Point I'm getting here: Fingerprints are minor piece of annoyance that add a bit to the travelers problems. For me, the privacy implications were pretty well addressed by DHS docs. The guy that interviews you at the border is the first person who you meet in foreign country - it's his behavior that gives the first impression.
The annoying part has been the attitude of almost all occasions I've basically felt that arrogance of "YOU ARE NOTHING, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I LET YOU IN, you pitiful European". Some vindication came on the last time in:
I was recently in Minneapolis IETF, and went through Chicago again (to change planes to Minneapolis). I don't know whether it was "economy is down, this foreign guy might bring in some serious money" or the fact that it was Obama's home town and everyone was still in great post-election mood and they forgot to be jackasses - but the guy at the desk was really nice. He ofc asked all the same questions as every other time - where I'm going and why - but the attitude made me actually feel welcome to the US. He basically apologized that they have to these days take the whole hand (prints from all fingers) but also said how much better the reader is compared to old one, told me that if I'm planning to spend any time in Chicago he could name a couple of good steakhouses - before stamping my passport and sending me on to the baggage carousel.
Now, timewise it wasn't any faster than any previous visits - same 5 minutes to process me - but I actually felt a bit happy after 16-hour flight (with transfers).
Mind you, I've gotten the "I'm welcome" feeling in EVERY other country I've visited, ever. At all borders they've acquired the same information - why I'm there, when I'm leaving and what I'm planning to do - but I'll be glad to visit Canada, UK, Thailand, Japan, Australia, NZ, and even Russia again - as a tourist, spending my own money.
If I'll get the same experience on my subsequent US business trips as I got on my latest one, I might actually come in again as a tourist, bring friends, and spend some of my own money, too.
Re:Why not Canadians? (Score:3, Interesting)
Might have something to do with we sell you more oil then opec, more forestry products then you farm, more unrefined and in some cases refined goods you produce, more bulk raw minerals including diamonds. That if you want to keep oil flowing from alaska, you play nice, and if you like using our ports you do the same.
We also export people in the winter to the sunny southern US to keep it alive down there. On top of that we don't take anything, we have our own industry that lives on it's own. You decided you wanted cheaper and shipped your jobs to china/mexico and everywhere else. But don't worry! Up here, you can find that we have our own thriving manufacturing jobs that are slowly in decline along with the rest of the world.
Generally you don't go pissing in the guy's cereal when they're the ones supplying you with the goods and providing you with most of your base wealth, along with an entire new generation of brains because your edumucation system is in slow decline.
Re:May be I am stupid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad guy A drives a car to target B and leaves his finger prints all over the place. Target B gets destroyed but the biometric evidence is left behind. Law enforcement collects the biometric data from Bad Guy A and runs it through the big data warehouse in the sky. They then presumably know all that there is to know about him. At the very least, they know where he came into the country, where he has been living and from there, perhaps who has been associating with.
I know a guy who works with the Secret Service and very well might be one of the primary agents protecting Obama once he gets into the White House. We've had long conversations about what the government does and what their capabilities are with regards to intelligence gathering. Despite all of the rhetoric about big brother and loss of privacy, I'm quite comfortable knowing that unless I'm actively trying to destablize the government, they don't care about what I am up to.
Re:To help the non-germanophiles . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Verry interesting!
Even with advanced computer technology, data collection as undertaken by the Stasi, would require a big bureaucracy. Acting on any information mined from that data collection would require an even greater bureaucracy. I doubt that any half-aware political society would tolerate that kind of expense--especially when it results in significant annoyance.
On the other hand, the US has been putting up with the obnoxious TSA for a long time. . .. Hopefully that officious bureaucracy will be mellowed out in the new administration.
Re:Great... How much longer till 1984? (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't effect me as I am a citizen.
Wrong.. Brazil has a policy of exact reciprocity with border regulations and (at least in theory; I think they often don't care in practice) takes Americans finger prints. Even more interesting, the UK is beginning to do exactly the same thing (take fingerprints of non-citizens), following on from the US example. US people are of course, not citizens of the UK.
However, part of your point is right. It's very difficult to get people to fight something where most of the time they aren't aware of a direct influence on their freedom.
I think you are missing the point (Score:1, Interesting)
In USSR, all citizens were supposed to carry their passports at all times, and show them to the police and other authorities whenever they demanded to see it, or face detention. It's like having to have a driver's license while driving, only for just being there.
For example, my friends who chose to wear their hair long learned to never forget their passport at home.
In major cities like Moscow, your passport had to have a stamp permitting you to live in that city, or you had to have papers showing that you are there on business. You could not just come to Moscow and live there, you needed a permission and that stamp.
Re:I think you are missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Not "were", "are". There's no USSR anymore, but the rules haven't changed in Russia in that regard.
Re:US citizens will be next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think you are missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)
In USSR, all citizens were supposed to carry their passports at all times, and show them to the police and other authorities whenever they demanded to see it, or face detention. It's like having to have a driver's license while driving, only for just being there.
No. Who told you that?
For example, my friends who chose to wear their hair long learned to never forget their passport at home.
Your "friends" lived in USSR in early 60's when things like that still bothered cops? Then passports wouldn't help them.
In major cities like Moscow, your passport had to have a stamp permitting you to live in that city, or you had to have papers showing that you are there on business. You could not just come to Moscow and live there, you needed a permission and that stamp.
That's propiska, residence registration, you moron. It means that you have an apartment or house in the city. Government provided apartments for token rent, so when you moved to another city you had to go through official channel exchanging apartments, buying a house or getting employer/school-sponsored one. People didn't have to spend anything significant on rent -- having a place to live was considered a basic right, however having it in, say, center of Moscow, obviously was not.
Re:I think you are missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans have "freedom of movement" (actually freedom of not telling the government that they have moved) at the expense of a right to a dwelling, and 30%-50% of their income being eaten by rent or mortgages.
After living in both countries I can assure all of you that "right to a dwelling" alone provides more impact than all your piddly "you have a right if you are rich enough, otherwise you are screwed" rights.
Except Canadians? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Redundant (not this post, but these fingerprint (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Redundant (not this post, but these fingerprint (Score:3, Interesting)
This issue has bounced back and forth in the courts a few times. I was issued a Green Card in 1978. It was a permanent card -- as in, when I turned 18 in theory I would still be carrying the same card with a picture of me as a child on it. Cards issued even earlier than mine inexplicably had wavy lines printed right over the photograph, like a canceled postage stamp.
Then one day, when I was in high school, my family all got letters saying that our cards were no longer permanent, and that not only would we need to go get new cards ASAP, but we would now need to report to the INS to renew the cards every few years (at our expense, of course -- and it wasn't cheap). Part of getting the new card also meant we needed to be fingerprinted, and I believe the fingerprint was incorporated into the new card.
Several years went by before I dealt with the INS again, but it seemed to me that a pattern of steadily eroding rights of immigrants was not advantageous for me, so I began the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. At that point I was told that citizenship applications were actually being processed faster than Green Card applications, because of the backlog under the new Green Card laws. Presumably there were lots of people whose Green Cards had expired, but who had not yet been given an appointment by the INS, and therefore they had a hard time getting work.
I became a citizen, but after that I heard the original decision had been reversed and that permanent resident alien status was now considered permanent again. I think you might still need to keep the photo up to date on the card, but the process is not as odious as it once was (and doesn't require as much in fees). Though I could be wrong. As a U.S. citizen it is no longer my concern -- until they pass some law that distinguishes between naturalized and God-given citizenship, in which case they'll be able to start taking my rights away all over again.
As a side note, I enjoyed becoming a U.S. citizen so much that I've since become a UK citizen, too. I hear tell they know how to do it over there, these days -- they'll take away your rights no matter what your immigration status is! ;-)
Re:I think you are missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
No, the government does not tell you where to live. Propiska is simply a stamp registering where you live. Without a propiska you can have some problems with buracracy and administration if you need anything, and theoretically im sure the police can give you some hassle over not having it.
Also, I have never been stopped in the street by the police, on the roads by the menty -not sure how to transliterate this... its a bad word for police- a few times... occasionally for speeding, but they are more interested in driving licence, insurance, maybe a bribe, and occasionally want to discuss English football.
One thing for sure. Since coming to Russia i feel a lot more free than i did living in the UK. Could be just the government are a lot more skilled here at giving the illusion of freedom.... the politicians in the west are pure amateurs when compared to Putin and his gang ;-)
Re:May be I am stupid... (Score:3, Interesting)
The founders did not attempt to destabilize the monarchy, despite their ill will towards- and actions against the crown. They chose to declare independence from the empire and found a just society which avoided the possibility of tyranny. There's a big difference.
The right they fought for was a constitution, ensuring a democratically elected government which worked for the people and did not abuse them. Despite Republican claims they did not chant the "small government" mantra- they sought States' rights, so that people could live according to their own beliefs without an over-arching figure dictating unnecessary laws that were unnecessary for the protection of the union (e.g. federal "marriage protection" and anti-abortion laws).
What has eroded is the ability of a government to be limited in a much more complex world than the one in which our forefathers lived. I would love keep the taxes I pay to the department of transportation, but maintaining airports and highways is a little more important to me. Sure, there's waste, and that should be addressed, but to say government should be "limited" is simply naive acceptance of a cheap electioneering tactic.
Want to make government smaller? Vote out incumbents, demand your representatives pay attention to citizens' lobbying rather than corporate, and go work for it to replace an incompetent bureaucrat with a better one. Posting rhetoric here won't push your agenda far.