U.S. government plans to fingerprint cruisers at terminals

[DqALEX]

You americans are safe, it is me and all those other foreigners who come to the US to get on a cruise ship. I am so against it isn't funny. No way should they be allowed to do that, it goes against my rights. I have to ask, have ANY of you thought that if someone wants to stay they can conveniently DISAPPEAR and blend in with everything and as long as they do not commit a crime or go somewhere where fingerprinting is done (such as a theme park) they can lie low and life the life they want in your country. If you want an example of this is recently a woman was arrested afte 32 years on the lam for child abduction charges!!!! 32 years!!!! She laid low, changed names, and no one ever suspected.

 

Fingerprinting is not the solution, if anything it will only make Canadians, and all other foreigners angry and peeved off at the US!!!!! One has to think at cross-border shopping. Thousands of people cross the border everyday, imagine the hassels it will cause at border crossings?....

 

NO FINGERPRINTING!!!!

I live here in the U.S and could not agree with you more. Whats next for us to do?? I feel so safe when I see the 90 year old man take off his shoes at the airport, or the 7 year old kid in the new air blow machine at Tampa airport looking for bomb dust. We are letting this run our lives and its getting crazy. I love the gun boats when you are leaving from the U.S. Where are the gun boats when you are leaving from some Islands??

[griswalds]

I have to chuckle when I read many of the posts on this issue. Paranoia reigns supreme. Please help me to understand this. You want to see non-Americans aka Aliens fingerprinted? Right now everyone has to have a passport. The Alien passport may be a fake so you fingerprint everyone except those carrying an American passport. If you are carrying a fake passport then, guess what country of choice you would use for your fake passport - USA as then you would not be required to finger printed. How long do you think you would remain exempt?

 

Why not just add fingerprints to all passports regardless of the country of origin as an extra identity check if we have arrived at that point?

 

Right now the US is having a difficult time even controlling the flow of people from Mexico much more than a rowdy mob of alien cruise shop passengers.

 

Griswalds

[Thirsty Cruiser]

Hope they print every foreigner...

 

 

Sorry... Every Country has the right to know who is entering and exiting their Country... one way or another. :)

'Bout time we took responsibility for the security of our citizens.

 

It's no wonder the US is slowly becoming a police state. People are just too happy to give up their rights in the name of a false sense of security.

 

I would gladly give up my "rights" if it meant sparing innocent lives. Time to wake up and smell the ammonium nitrate.:cool:

[ClerkPatsy]

I got tired of reading all of the Disney vs. Busch comments. So, if this has already been said, sorry for my ADD :D.

 

Why don't we just take their DNA instead of fingerprints. That way we can solve more crimes:eek: . OMG, does that sound like stereotyping? Well, so does the rest of most of your posts!

[gtalum]

I would gladly give up my "rights" if it meant sparing innocent lives.

 

Thank you for so clearly illustrating exactly what is wrong with the USA today. :)

 

Further, please feel free to explain how inconveniencing our international money-spending visitors makes anyone safer in any way.

[IKE]

Sorry you feel that way, Canadians but Your country was not attacked on 9/11, Ours was. I am for anything that will keep the USA, The Greatest Country in the World Safe. Finger print me too, I have nothing to hide. IKE

[nrdsb4]

I agree with the "stay at home" comment. Although I suspect the cruise lines and many other businesses that depend on foreign visitors would like to have some imput on that.

 

What countries demand fingerprints upon entry by foreigners? The only country I'm aware of that does this is the US, and it is only done under certain circumstances. As to "checking everyone for criminal activity", there are so many issues with this. First, it isn't checking "everyone", just foreigners. Second, I haven't seen a suggestion that this is how the data will be used, my impression was that it was to help in tracking down visa holders who overstay their welcome. Third, it strikes me that using it in this way could be argued to be a violation of basic civil rights - assuming guilt without probable cause. Finally, other countries have been subjected to devastating terrorist attacks, some repeatedly over long periods of time, and their reactions have not necessarily followed the apparent reaction of the US.

 

Surrendering a fingerprint is giving personal information. I'm not entirely sure why so many object to it. Certainly cruise passengers already provide sufficient information to determine who they are and for authorized access to personal financial and other information.

 

Your objection to having private industry bear the cost makes sense. I suspect that if this is the final outcome, then there will be many who suggest that the cost should be entirely borne by those subject to fingerprinting. After all, it hardly seems fair to ask those not being fingerprinted to pay. Of course, asking foreigners to bear the entire cost is simply going to add one more perceived roadblock to visiting the US. The general impression of many outside the US is that it is unwelcoming of foreigners. This would be just another brick in that wall. The question is, does the wall provide enough protection to justify the cost to businesses that depend on foreigner visitors?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your first two (highlighted) sentences don't seem to jibe with each other.

 

What "personal information" is surrendered when giving a fingerprint? It simply confirms identity, nothing more. DNA, now that's a different story. A whole lot of personal information can be gleaned from a DNA sample.

 

Even though I'm debating whether fingerprinting is "clearly" a 4th amendment violation giving recent Supreme Court rulings, I am not arguing for this new policy. I agree with others that I'm puzzled as to how it actually improves safety.

[sassy0930]

Well, Broberts was replying to me saying that the government can take my fingerprints because it's not the most personal information they could take from me. I understand what he said, but it could've been a little clearer.

 

They aren't asking non-us resident to give them their bank account numbers to track whether or not they're funding terrorists, they aren't asking for credit card records, phone bills, hospital records or ANYTHING that could potentially be used against you even if you've done nothing wrong. (example in my head is if your phone bill shows a phone number of a suspected terrorist they can try to link you to said terrorist and blah blah blah. Even if you just dialed it as a wrong number. Kinda Law and Order-y I know, but it's possible )

 

A fingerprint cannot be manipulated to make it look like anything but what it is. You can't put a spin on a fingerprint. It's a pretty simple process and it's helping the US take one more step to enforcing laws that already exist!

[cruise_pirate]

Here in Florida, you have to have your fingerprint scanned to get into Busch Gardens and Sea World.

 

Those things are a real pain in the ***, too. Slows everything considerably. Most people have to repeat the process at least twice b/c the machine did not get a succesful read.

 

Universal Studios too

[broberts]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your first two (highlighted) sentences don't seem to jibe with each other.

 

What "personal information" is surrendered when giving a fingerprint? It simply confirms identity, nothing more. DNA, now that's a different story. A whole lot of personal information can be gleaned from a DNA sample.

 

Even though I'm debating whether fingerprinting is "clearly" a 4th amendment violation giving recent Supreme Court rulings, I am not arguing for this new policy. I agree with others that I'm puzzled as to how it actually improves safety.

 

The point I was attempting to make was that the personal information we already provide the cruise line gives authorities enough data to find out lots of other personal information.

 

I do believe that fingerprints are personal information but I also wonder why so many seem to have problems with surrendering one - we surrender personal information all the time. I suspect that it comes down to a matter of trust. One side of the argument is that if one has nothing to hide, what harm is there? The other side suggests that it is a violation of civil rights. To me both arguments have merit, hence my ambivalence.

[nrdsb4]

The point I was attempting to make was that the personal information we already provide the cruise line gives authorities enough data to find out lots of other personal information.

 

I do believe that fingerprints are personal information but I also wonder why so many seem to have problems with surrendering one - we surrender personal information all the time. I suspect that it comes down to a matter of trust. One side of the argument is that if one has nothing to hide, what harm is there? The other side suggests that it is a violation of civil rights. To me both arguments have merit, hence my ambivalence.

 

Okay, I thought when you said "surrendering fingerprints is giving personal information" that you might have meant to go on and say "so I'm not entirely sure why more people DON'T have a problem with it." I wasn't picking up on the ambivelence. Thanks for clarifying.

[nrdsb4]

What countries demand fingerprints upon entry by foreigners? The only country I'm aware of that does this is the US, and it is only done under certain circumstances.

 

I promise I'm not picking on you, you make a lot of sense, but I just came across this:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/05/17/fingerprints-japan.html

 

Add Japan to this list, at least according to this article.

 

With the EU soon to follow?:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3366326.ece

 

Personally, I've enjoyed this thread as it has made me think about a few things, as well as try to educate myself a little better about constitutional protections. They are not always as cut and dry as some would have us believe. That is why the Supreme Court exists: to make sure that laws pass muster constitutionally. Very brilliant individuals often disagree about what does or does not violate our Constitution. It's not always "clear."

[halos]

I've tried to understand how this violates my rights...but I can't see it.

 

For me, giving up a fingerprint doesn't seem like a big deal. Then again, I'm not one to hide anything. I'm overly trusting and very naive. So far this hasn't killed me, so I'll stick with it. I tend to dislike people who are paranoid and hide things.

 

I know people who will not use those cards you get for certain stores (supermarkets, pharmacies..pet stores or whatever) because they track your purchases... They refuse, stating that they don't want people to know that they buy. It invades their privacy.

Well, I guess it does to a certain point...but I don't really care.

 

 

So, I guess there are a lot of people who easily find their privacy invaded. For me personally, I have nothing to hide, I don't care who knows what I buy at the supermarket and I dont' care if I have to be fingerprinted. I think people get nuts over the most insanely stupid things.

 

Oh and I'm a very liberal, liberal but I do find sometimes people and scream and rant about their rights and spend way too much time fussing over what seems so trivial to me. Sometimes the rights they think they should have are things I don't even agree with.

In the grand scheme of things it's just crap.

(Obviously I am not referring to basic human rights in any way)

 

 

I don't have time for that. I have life to live and cruises to book.

[broberts]

I promise I'm not picking on you, you make a lot of sense, but I just came across this:

 

Thanks for the references. I wasn't aware that Japan had reintroduced the practice.

 

The second reference I found interesting because it bears on the proposal discussed in this thread. Authorities in the EU, it seems, want to fingerprint foreigners entering the union to better track visa violators. No mention is made of fingerprinting those leaving the area though.