Dept. of Homeland Security To Test Iris Scanners 221
SonicSpike writes "The Homeland Security Department plans to test futuristic iris scan technology that stores digital images of people's eyes in a database and is considered a quicker alternative to fingerprints. The department will run a two-week test in October of commercially sold iris scanners at a Border Patrol station in McAllen, Texas, where they will be used on illegal immigrants, said Arun Vemury, program manager at the department's Science and Technology branch. 'The test will help us determine how viable this is for potential (department) use in the future,' Vemury said."
What's going to stop them (Score:3, Insightful)
From deciding this is a great idea and putting it everywhere? They already fingerprint (foreigners), so iris scanning isn't really that far off. I won't bore you anymore with the slippery slope argument, I think we all know where this is going.
I wonder what it'll take to rally the docile United States citizens to fight back. You guys have guns and shit, don't you? Maybe you should go confederate on the government's ass.
Hello Mr. Yukkamoto (Score:3, Insightful)
GAP Sign: Hello Mr. Yukkamoto and welcome back to the GAP!
John Anderton: *Mr. Yukkamoto?*
Re:What's going to stop them (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll try.
They'll get sued.
The courts will see it as an invasion wherever it's an invasion, and as valid wherever it's valid, and will screw up the fringe cases that will become controversial until an apellate court gets it right or the Supreme Court does what the GOP chose them to do.
This ain't America's first rodeo.
Okay somebody tell me (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have you heard of people leaving their iris prints on a doorknob, or wine glass, or a gun?
Re:Okay somebody tell me (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, it will start with mandatory scans for passports and airports, then all border crossings, then even bus and train stations and amusement parks, and where can they take it from there?
Re:!worse (Score:4, Insightful)
its not worse either
That rather depends on your vantage point, now doesn't it? GWB never tried to tell me that I must buy a product from a for-profit industry.....
and whats it got to do with this new administration, really?
Who do you think runs Homeland Security? The underpants gnomes?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's going to stop them (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts will probably rule that you have no expectation of your privacy when you are outside of your own home like they have ruled for just about everything else. Remember, this is the same court that allows warrant-less GPS devices to be placed on your cars. (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-27/justice/oregon.gps.surveillance_1_gps-device-appeals-chief-judge-alex-kozinski?_s=PM:CRIME)
The idea that courts will clear things up is laughable. They almost never rule in favor of freedom.
Re:!worse (Score:3, Insightful)
especially one led by a legal scholar
You mean the same legal scholar with the anti-gun voting record? The one that voted for retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that broke the law? The one that thinks the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the power to compel the citizenry to do business with for-profit enterprise? The one that thinks the 1st amendment doesn't apply when citizens band together under the guise of a corporation?
That legal scholar?
Re:Get rid of illegal immigration... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many cases where the law, not the people need to change.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:!worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:!worse (Score:5, Insightful)
What a surprise. You remembered the people killed on 9/11 but you forgot all of the US and allied service-members and innocent civilians killed by the wars.
Hundreds of thousands have died. Millions have been displaced. And our country's treasury has been raided. I don't think Halliburton caused the wars, but I do know they have conducted themselves as war profiteers. And that is a vile crime.
Re:What's going to stop them (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll take Judaical review over "proportional" representation any day of the week. Proportional representation gives too much power to political parties. Political parties under such systems tend to be much more monolithic entities than they are in the United States.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Illegal immigration is from economic imbalance (Score:3, Insightful)
The root of illegal immigration is the lack of enforcement of employment law.
The root of illegal immigration is economic imbalance. More money and higher paying jobs exist in the US than exist in Mexico. Accordingly we should expect to see people migrating to where the economic opportunity happens to be. It's like osmosis - people will move in the direction of money an opportunity. Laws can do little more than slow the movement. Expecting people to obey the law when the alternative is abject poverty and possible starvation is absurd. We don't have a problem with Canadian's immigrating illegally because there is no economic incentive for them to do so. Help Mexico build up its economy and the problem will go away. Continue to ignore Mexico's economic problems and the problem will continue indefinitely. Building bigger fences and enforcing more and more restrictive laws will NEVER solve the problem but it will cost vast sums of money.
Scanning illegal immigrants (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's going to stop them (Score:1, Insightful)
You don't have a right not to be followed around by the police, even if they do it sneakily. When you're in public, you're in public, not in private.
And of course you're defending this because you landed the multibillion dollar contract to chase cars around and disable their trackers when they drive onto private property where the cops shouldn't go without a warrant?
That aside, "expectation" doesn't mean what the supreme court wants it to mean whenever what it really means gets in the way of the government. I don't expect to be followed everywhere I go. I don't expect to have people spending the day looking in my windows if I leave the blinds open. The fact that we have stalking and peeping-tom laws reinforces my expectations.
Obviously though, we should just trust the government not to abuse their power. After all, they're from the government and they're here to help!
Tough policing will not solve immigration ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why we need to take that economic opportunity away from them unless they play by our rules.
Unless you plan to make illegal immigration a capital crime, you will not stop it no matter how well you enforce the laws. The economic incentives greatly outweigh the consequences. If the choice is between starvation and breaking immigration laws, the choice is easy.
It's not our job to help Mexico build up its economy.
No it's not required but that doesn't make it a bad idea. We didn't have to help Europe or Japan after WWII either but it was a good idea to do so. An economically healthy Mexico would benefit the US far more than the few illegal migrant workers do now. We reap the benefits of trillions of dollars in trade each year with the EU and Japan, countries we helped. Had we crushed them when they were down things would almost certainly be worse than they are today.
But if you prefer to be short sighted and selfish, that's fine. Just recognize that by your actions have consequences - in this case, illegal immigrants by the millions. You also need to recognize that you are wasting money on a futile, greedy and spiteful response.
Re:Tough policing will not solve immigration ever (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you plan to make illegal immigration a capital crime, you will not stop it no matter how well you enforce the laws.
You don't attack the immigrant, you attack the employer that's breaking the laws by hiring him. Make it more expensive to hire illegal labor than legal labor and business will stop doing so.
Besides, you misunderstand me. I'm pro-immigration. My Libertarian inclination is for nearly unfettered immigration. I say that we should let them all in legally as long as they aren't a terrorist or criminal. My only issue is with the hypocrisy of our existing laws and the lack of enforcement thereof. It's not fair to the people who come here legally and it enables our political class to duck a much needed public debate on the issue.
Yes, business as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
From my non-American point of view, the difference between American Liberals and Republicans is like the difference between getting bitten by a cobra or mauled by a bear. One might be somewhat less painful than the other but the end result is not that different. From what I have seen, it does not matter who is the American president or from what party he is from since all of them will stick to the status quo on foreign policies (preserving American "greatness") while also eroding the rights of not only American citizens but by setting bad examples to other foreign governments to follow.
Re:!better (Score:3, Insightful)