Ireland given three years to introduce fingerprints on passports

scojones

breakingnews.ie wrote:

Ireland given three years to introduce fingerprints on passports
05/07/2006 - 13:06:35

All Irish passports will have to include fingerprints from June 2009 under new measures agreed by the European Commission this week.

The measures will also require all newly-issued passports across the EU to feature an electronic chip containing digital pictures, names and dates of birth from August of this year.

The Irish Government has already announced plans to introduce such passports in October.

The EU measures form part of efforts to tackle international terrorism, but are also designed to meet US demands that all countries involved in the visa-waiver scheme begin producing biometric passports from this October.

Kind of freaky tbh. Germany have introduced the RFID system, but have yet to fully introduce the fingerprinting, they hope to have it implemented by 2007. I'm told that they will use a hash of the fingerprints so that the data office cannot use the prints for criminal investigations, et al.

Apparently, each country will have it's own central db server which will hold all of the information, and when a passport control office in an airport is scanning your passport they will contact said database. I'd be very interested in seeing the setup for this, and how they handle replication of such magnitude.

Ruu_Old

I think the Irish government have the facilities to produce such passports, I think they were going on about it at the time the US demanded biometric passports.

stevenmu

sjones wrote:

Kind of freaky tbh. Germany have introduced the RFID system, but have yet to fully introduce the fingerprinting, they hope to have it implemented by 2007. I'm told that they will use a hash of the fingerprints so that the data office cannot use the prints for criminal investigations, et al.

Nice, they're using technical terms to confuse people into thinking it's ok. The hashed fingerprints can be used in criminal investigations easily, they just need to hash the fingerprint they get from the crime scene the exact same way they'd hash your prints for comparison when they're read at an airport. It would mean partial prints wouldn't work though (assuming it's a decent hashing algorithm).


Edit: How many terrorists have been found using false passports ? I'm pretty sure at least some of the 9/11 ones were identified from their passports which were genuine.

Dragan

I'm more curious to see how much they will charge us to get these new passports. :rolleyes:

28064212

sjones wrote:

Kind of freaky tbh...

Why? They can identify us by our passports, so what? Woop-de-****

robinph

28064212 wrote:

Why? They can identify us by our passports, so what? Woop-de-****

Which they can already do though, why do they need to have all this extra information encoded onto the passports which is then made available to the authorities in whichever other country to happen to visit. And who controls what any of these people can then use that information for?

scojones

28064212 wrote:

Why? They can identify us by our passports, so what? Woop-de-****

Why? I don't trust the security of RFID, and I don't like the idea of my fingerprints being on my passport.

robinph

sjones wrote:

Why? I don't trust the security of RFID, and I don't like the idea of my fingerprints being on my passport.

I forgot about the RFID thing. That means that someone can read you passport details from you just by you walking past them with your passport in your pocket if they have the scanner. Dead handy I'm sure if your struggling to carry your bags off the plane through immigration and cannot be botherd to dig around in your bag for your passport do bo you really want your information that freely accessible to anyone with a scanner?

New_Departure06

Biometric passports are a welcome development in the fight against terrorism and people trafficking. The forged passport could gradually become a thing of the past and a crucial weapon against illegal immigration will be in our hands.

However I understand that the existing Irish plans only show a biometric facial image rather than anything else. I hope the Commission's proposals become EU law (which they won't until they pass the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament) because a fingerprint is a better protection.

Sofaspud

but are also designed to meet US demands that all countries involved in the visa-waiver scheme begin producing biometric passports from this October.

Kinda off topic, but I hate the self-righteousness of the American government. Apparently, they have the right to tell the rest of the world how to handle their security. I flew to America last year, and the security in the airport was ridiculous. If all airports were like that, I honestly think that I'd never leave the country again. The world is just becoming too paranoid.

Feral Mutant

Sofaspud wrote:

I flew to America last year, and the security in the airport was ridiculous.

I know what you mean. Last time I went to the US, I had to fill out some form with the most ridiculous questions ever.

Between the years of 1939 and 1945 were you a member of or in any way affiliated with the nazi party?

Ruu_Old

Feral Mutant wrote:

I know what you mean. Last time I went to the US, I had to fill out some form with the most ridiculous questions ever.

In fairness those I-94 forms (green ones) have been around for ages but yes its scary with all the security and paranoia surrounding travel (especially to the US).

robinph

New_Departure06 wrote:

Biometric passports are a welcome development in the fight against terrorism...

How is terrorism prevented by them knowing the these extra details about me or anyone else. If a terrorist is about to do something bad then they will either not have previously appeared on the radar of the people tracking these things, or they will have got themselves a fake passport already that will let them travel where they want without being flagged up on the systems, and it does not really mater a whole lot if you knew their fingerprints after the event.

New_Departure06 wrote:

...and people trafficking.

I'm not aware of them doing any passport check on people stowed away in containers at the moment anyway, so adding more checks onto them is not going to make much of a difference to this either. Better ways of detecting which lorries people are hiding in is what is needed for this.

monkeyfudge

It's pretty disgraceful alright... they're just going to be making identity theft all the more easy. And absolute faith is put in these systems, so if the computer says it's you, then it's definitely you.

There is no way I'll allow myself to be fingerprinted as if I was a criminal.

shnaek

It's nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control. The warnings of such books as 1984 are falling on deaf ears. By the time people cop on to what is really happening it will be too late. And as usual the law abiding citizen will have to fork out for all this nonsense while the law breaking citizens are having a laugh at this stupidity.
How does this passport stop illegal immigration? Do you think they show their passport at a border control in the first place?
As for terrorism - these passports wouldn't have prevented Oaklahoma, and wouldn't have prevented 9-11 either - the perps were in the US legally. If there was knowledge that they were terrorists they would have been picked up. It's a farce and we are fools for swallowing it.

Ruu_Old

What choice do we have though? If we dont have any of the newer passports, then we wont be let travel (to certain countries at first probably). Im not agreeing with this btw.

robinph

shnaek wrote:

As for terrorism - these passports wouldn't have prevented Oaklahoma, and wouldn't have prevented 9-11 either - the perps were in the US legally.

...and would not have even been using their passports to board the flights anyway as they were all internal flights so probably just used their state issued driving licenses for ID. It would not have stoped the Madrid bombings, it would not have stopped the London bombings, it would not even have stopped the nutter in Dublin airport yesterday.

It's a total waste of money for the claims that they are making for how its going to make the world a safer place.

robinph

Ruu wrote:

What choice do we have though? If we dont have any of the newer passports, then we wont be let travel (to certain countries at first probably). Im not agreeing with this btw.

Not a whole lot that we can do about it really I guess. The best response to this is if your state is also against this, such as Brasil, and they then impose additioanl checks on US citizens now entering their county. All US citizens are fingerprinted on entry, but every one else gets in the same as before.

Unfortunately the EU is freindly with the US so we are still actually getting a slightly easier way of entry to the states once we bring in these passports than a lot of other countires that they don't trust quite as much.

Edit: Forgot to add that I think there is a way round having one of these passport once they bring them in, at least initially. If you are living outside of the country of where your passport is issued then you would get a new one issued by the embassy in your country of residence and these will not include all of the new RFID features and just be one the standard ones currently issued.

Guy:Incognito

Sofaspud wrote:

Kinda off topic, but I hate the self-righteousness of the American government. Apparently, they have the right to tell the rest of the world how to handle their security. I flew to America last year, and the security in the airport was ridiculous. If all airports were like that, I honestly think that I'd never leave the country again. The world is just becoming too paranoid.

How are they? They are saying that to enter theri country you have to fit certain criteria (ie having a biometric passport) If you dont want a biometric passport dont get one, you just cant go to america. So in the ned it's easier for the government to have biometric passports so that you dont have to go get a special one just to go to america.

monkeyfudge wrote:

There is no way I'll allow myself to be fingerprinted as if I was a criminal.

Why assosiate it with you being treated like a criminal? If everyone had it done it'd be the norm. For teh below reason would you not be happy if your house was ransacked that the gaards could lift a print and know straight away who burgled you? If you do nothing wrong , why have any objections to any crime fighting measures?

It's like all the people who moan about gards tucking themselves behind stuff with their speed guns. If you dotn speed you cant be caught, so why focus on people who are tryign to catch law breakers.
Ot but if everyone was fingerprinted at birth it would make crimfighting much easier. murder weapon found with prints? easy to identify murderer.

Del2005

robinph wrote:

Edit: Forgot to add that I think there is a way round having one of these passport once they bring them in, at least initially. If you are living outside of the country of where your passport is issued then you would get a new one issued by the embassy in your country of residence and these will not include all of the new RFID features and just be one the standard ones currently issued.

That won't work. If you have a passport issued after Oct 2005 and it doesn't have the biometric details you will have to apply for a visa to enter the US.
That means ringing the US embassy visa line here at EUR2 per minute then, queuing up in the embassy to get ur visa

scojones

monkeyfudge wrote:

There is no way I'll allow myself to be fingerprinted as if I was a criminal.

Exactly. What ever happend to innocent until proven guilty? It's more like guilty until proven innocent.

shnaek wrote:

It's nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control. The warnings of such books as 1984 are falling on deaf ears. By the time people cop on to what is really happening it will be too late. And as usual the law abiding citizen will have to fork out for all this nonsense while the law breaking citizens are having a laugh at this stupidity.
How does this passport stop illegal immigration? Do you think they show their passport at a border control in the first place?
As for terrorism - these passports wouldn't have prevented Oaklahoma, and wouldn't have prevented 9-11 either - the perps were in the US legally. If there was knowledge that they were terrorists they would have been picked up. It's a farce and we are fools for swallowing it.

I agree completely. This whole 'war on terror' is a farce and it is being used as an excuse to make things like this happen way too easily. What's next? CCTV cameras in our homes? Having to show your fingerprint-embedded passport leave my house so I can purchase foods and goods?

When Bush flew into Shannon I wasn't allowed to get into the town for my Mother's birthday - I have lived in Shannon all my life and was on my way up from Tralee. I had to spend the night in Bunratty. Needless to say I was raging. I'm all for trying to stop 'terrorists', but some of the measures taken are just retarded.

Ruu_Old

Yep the government will bend over backwards to help the US but when it comes to the other way around we are out on our own I'm afraid.
I had to get fingerprints taken for my visa and well they take a photo and fingerprint you entering the US now anyway.

Sofaspud

Stekelly wrote:

How are they? They are saying that to enter theri country you have to fit certain criteria (ie having a biometric passport) If you dont want a biometric passport dont get one, you just cant go to america. So in the ned it's easier for the government to have biometric passports so that you dont have to go get a special one just to go to america.

And what if they said that upon entering their country, you had to be fitted with a chip so they can monitor your whereabouts at all times? Or if you had to be followed around by armed guards? I'm asking why it is deemed neccessary for these precautions to be brought in, when it only causes more hassle for law abiding people, and won't really change much else.

Stekelly wrote:

Why assosiate it with you being treated like a criminal? If everyone had it done it'd be the norm. For teh below reason would you not be happy if your house was ransacked that the gaards could lift a print and know straight away who burgled you? If you do nothing wrong , why have any objections to any crime fighting measures?

So would you agree with having cameras installed in every room in your house? You're not doing anything illegal, so why should you object to it? If cameras were installed in every house, on every street, in every building, then very few crimes would go unsolved. Ditto with armed guards folloing everybody around. So why should we object to these things?

Stekelly wrote:

It's like all the people who moan about gards tucking themselves behind stuff with their speed guns. If you dotn speed you cant be caught, so why focus on people who are tryign to catch law breakers.

In fairness, there are worse crimes that they could be working on, trying to stop drug dealers and murderers, or skangers that they never seem to care about. I'd hardly call doing 65 in a 60 zone a harmful crime.

Stekelly wrote:

Ot but if everyone was fingerprinted at birth it would make crimfighting much easier. murder weapon found with prints? easy to identify murderer.

And if we all spent our lives living in sterile labs, everyone following an exact schedule and food/drink routine we could live healthily for much longer, and there would never be any trouble. Would you like to live that way?

robinph

Del2005 wrote:

That won't work. If you have a passport issued after Oct 2005 and it doesn't have the biometric details you will have to apply for a visa to enter the US.
That means ringing the US embassy visa line here at EUR2 per minute then, queuing up in the embassy to get ur visa

This would be in cases where your already living in the US on a green card or similar so don't actually need the visa on your new passport for entering that country.

Guy:Incognito

Sofaspud wrote:

And what if they said that upon entering their country, you had to be fitted with a chip so they can monitor your whereabouts at all times? Or if you had to be followed around by armed guards? I'm asking why it is deemed neccessary for these precautions to be brought in, when it only causes more hassle for law abiding people, and won't really change much else.

This really cant get any simpler. It's THEIR country. If you dont like their rules dont go there. Why do people get so uppety about everything american being so bad. If it's so bad why would they want to go there or even care about what goes on there?

Sofaspud wrote:

So would you agree with having cameras installed in every room in your house? You're not doing anything illegal, so why should you object to it? If cameras were installed in every house, on every street, in every building, then very few crimes would go unsolved. Ditto with armed guards folloing everybody around. So why should we object to these things?

I agree with cameras on as many streets as possible. Whereas my home is my home that I paid for. If I want cameras in it I'll put them there. If every street was covered by cameras, thered be no need for cameras in everyones house. Cam 1 sees a guy breaking into a house then leaving 20 mins later with a tv, leaving a dead woman inside. Not a hard crime to crack.

Sofaspud wrote:

In fairness, there are worse crimes that they could be working on, trying to stop drug dealers and murderers, or skangers that they never seem to care about. I'd hardly call doing 65 in a 60 zone a harmful crime.

Not until your hit by a speeding motorist it isnt. Anyway, I was using it as an example.

Sofaspud wrote:

And if we all spent our lives living in sterile labs, everyone following an exact schedule and food/drink routine we could live healthily for much longer, and there would never be any trouble. Would you like to live that way?

Well if you want that, thats fine, but it's nothing to do with anything I said.

robinph

Stekelly wrote:

How are they? They are saying that to enter theri country you have to fit certain criteria (ie having a biometric passport) If you dont want a biometric passport dont get one, you just cant go to america. So in the ned it's easier for the government to have biometric passports so that you dont have to go get a special one just to go to america.

What if I don't want a biometric passport though, but I'm perfectly happy to go and apply for a visa for whatever county it is that I'm about to visit. They can then ask me whatever questions they want and do any nessecary checks before letting me in, but what do they need my iris scan and fingerprints for?

That option is being taken away from me now though.

Stekelly wrote:

Why assosiate it with you being treated like a criminal? If everyone had it done it'd be the norm. For teh below reason would you not be happy if your house was ransacked that the gaards could lift a print and know straight away who burgled you? If you do nothing wrong , why have any objections to any crime fighting measures?

It's not a crime figting measure though and the local police forces won't have access to the database. I've no doubt that once they have the whole lot of us tagged though they will open the database up to whoever wants it and tell us it's all to make the world a safer place though.

Guy:Incognito

robinph wrote:

What if I don't want a biometric passport though, but I'm perfectly happy to go and apply for a visa for whatever county it is that I'm about to visit. They can then ask me whatever questions they want and do any nessecary checks before letting me in, but what do they need my iris scan and fingerprints for?

That option is being taken away from me now though.

Nothing is being taken away from you. If you ring the embassy/airport/whoever they will tell you what will happen and what you need. You can then decide whether or not to go to their country.

robinph

Stekelly wrote:

This really cant get any simpler. It's THEIR country. If you dont like their rules dont go there. Why do people get so uppety about everything american being so bad. If it's so bad why would they want to go there or even care about what goes on there?

Ireland is not THEIR country though so why it is being forced onto us then?

If I want to go to the US but they inist on taking my fingerprints on entry but I don't agree with that then I'll not go. But if I just want to hop over to France for the weekend then I'll still be needing my passport, but becasue the US told Ireland they needed biometric passports the Irish government now gets to take a scan of my eye and fingerprints just becasue I want to visit Europe.

Stekelly wrote:

Nothing is being taken away from you. If you ring the embassy/airport/whoever they will tell you what will happen and what you need. You can then decide whether or not to go to their country.

The option of not having the Irish government taking our fingerprints and iris scans is being taken away from us if we want to travel anywhere else other than the US though. Well apart from the UK which you can just walk into with your driving license.

Guy:Incognito

robinph wrote:

Ireland is not THEIR country though so why it is being forced onto us then?

If I want to go to the US but they inist on taking my fingerprints on entry but I don't agree with that then I'll not go. But if I just want to hop over to France for the weekend then I'll still be needing my passport, but becasue the US told Ireland they needed biometric passports the Irish government now gets to take a scan of my eye and fingerprints just becasue I want to visit Europe.



The option of not having the Irish government taking our fingerprints and iris scans is being taken away from us if we want to travel anywhere else other than the US though. Well apart from the UK which you can just walk into with your driving license.

Well thats all down to our government CHOOSING to change our passports to suit the US.

Ruu_Old

Let me tell you that if you want to go get a holiday visa for the US, its going to cost you time and money and in alot the cases being denied the visa (unless you have a very large bank balance).

robinph

Stekelly wrote:

Well thats all down to our government CHOOSING to change our passports to suit the US.

Our government are doing as they are told by our other government in Brussels who are doing as they are told by the other government in Washington. The only ones making any choices are the ones in Washington.

Mr.Nice Guy

Big Brussels is watching you.

astrofool

Couldn't you see the same arguments when passports were first introduced? i.e. why do I have to prove MY identity. Of course, back then, photo's were probably the only way to ID people as they didn't have forensic technology, but now that technology has caught up, then passports will obviously have to catch up as well.

A passport is there to prove you are who you say you are, nothing more, nothing less, countries will then choose to allow you to enter or not based on who you are (usually nationality). But say, for example, that Ireland did not want to let convicted paedophiles enter, then it could require that these biometric passports be encoded with such information.

The possibilities are there to do good and bad things with passport technology, but as things seem to be coming to a head, with regard illegal immigrants, terrorrists et al, then the immediate effect is that they make passports better able to prove you are you, and the only way they can do this is biometric.

But remember, if you carry a passport AT ALL, then you have already agreed to have your identity on file, with all the details that contains (name, birthdate, gender, address etc.)

astrofool

The passport already contains info on what you are, you are (probably) an Irish male, the reason EU countries let you in is because of what you are, they don't particularly care who you are (unless you think you're famous enough to deserve that recognition). As I said, they can use the technology for good and bad, America and Australia for instance doesn't allow people with a criminal record into the country, and could now enforce that more effectively.

Don't get me wrong, people WILL find ways around the technology, they always have and always will, somebody will be on the take somewhere, and until newer features are brought in to secure the system again, or to make forgeries impossible again, then it will be back to square one. The point is that passports have to provide enough confidence in the person/country accepting the passport that they are who/what they are, if they don't, then the passport is worthless, and hence why technologies like biometric tech are going to be used.

If you don't want anyone scanning the RFID btw, there was a proposal to put a faradays cage into the cover of the passport, so the person would have to open it to be read. I'm not sure if this was implemented, but you could also buy a passport cover that does the same job, and eliminate the possibility of walk by identity theft.

robinph

astrofool wrote:

A passport is there to prove you are who you say you are, nothing more, nothing less, countries will then choose to allow you to enter or not based on who you are (usually nationality). But say, for example, that Ireland did not want to let convicted paedophiles enter, then it could require that these biometric passports be encoded with such information.

They can already do that though once they have your name, dob etc and check whatever international databases are available to them. How does my fingerprint make checking that any easier.

Also this talk of the passports then becoming un-fakable is rubbish. How easy do you think it would be to fake a birth cert or get somone elses? Get yourselves one of them and you don't need a fake passport anymore, you can get yourself a real one that proves beyond doubt that the person stood infront of the passport control is the owner of that 100% genuine passport that he's holding. This master plan all falls down at the weakest link and that is the guys that are issuing the passport in the first place.

What you then have is a fantastic database of your law abiding population and all of their movements. Only you've now got no idea who or where any of the undesireables that your after are becasue the state has now become the forger of documents for these people so you don't even get to catch them with dodgy documents now as they don't need them. But they know they are never going to be able to stop them anyway so they don't really care about catching them, it's the rest of the population that they are interested in.

astrofool

Last time I checked, you didn't need your passport everywhere you go, hence, how can they track all your movements? At most they know you left/entered the country, which they already know from current passports.

By checking your fingerprint, all they will then know is that the information presented matches who you are, in the current system that is done by photo identity, which they have deemed is not enough to be confident of who you are.

Mr.Nice Guy

Have none of you considered how people without arms feel about this?

You want to discriminate against them? I feel sorry for you.

astrofool

Surely they can just mash their face into some sort of scanner.

Ruu_Old

I dont care too much about it since I have gone through the whole US visa system but Im sick and tired of having to take off my shoes at the airport.

scojones

Some fairly good arguments on this thread so far. I just want to address something that was said earlier, where someone on this thread wanted CCTV cameras on every street in the country. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. People are entitled to their anonymity. It's a right, and I don't think having less street crime is more important than having that right.

My arguments about this entire issue are:

1. I don't want to be fingerprinted. I am not a criminal, or a suspected criminal. Because of this, I will not enter the USA.

2. I don't want an RFID chip on my passport because I don't trust the security of such devices.

3. This will be a gateway to worse things to come. Once this is the norm, and people are used to this, soon you will have to be fingerprinted to enter into every country. Slowly our rights are being taken away from us. It's the attitude of "sure if I have nothing to hide then what's the problem?" that is the problem.

dermot_sheehan

sjones wrote:

Some fairly good arguments on this thread so far. I just want to address something that was said earlier, where someone on this thread wanted CCTV cameras on every street in the country. I think that's absolutely ridiculous. People are entitled to their anonymity. It's a right, and I don't think having less street crime is more important than having that right.

This seems a bit of a privacy rant, let's look at the fundamental issue regarding Passports.

People are not entitled to anonymity when entering a state. A state has the power, and some would say the duty to identify everyone crossing its boundaries. And that is what a passport does, it identifies you to your own state and a forgein state, and its purpose is to fascilitate you crossing borders by making this process easier. If technology advances so that passports can more reliably identify people, I don't see anything wrong with implementing it. If you accept that passports are legitamite, then you accept passports more reliably capable of fulfilling their function are legitamite

My arguments about this entire issue are:

1. I don't want to be fingerprinted. I am not a criminal, or a suspected criminal. Because of this, I will not enter the USA.

That is your choice, you are not required to apply for a passport. Associating fingerprinting with criminality is british/irish thing though. In the U.S. one routinely submits fingerprints for professional licences, state driving licences and ID cards, etc, it's accepted as a normal way to identify people.
Similarly in France, the current National ID card has the holders fingerprint represented as a alphanumeric hash in the machine readable zone.

2. I don't want an RFID chip on my passport because I don't trust the security of such devices.

Again, you are not compelled to have a passport. There are some people who would not believe in photographs (for example strict interpretations of islam, as the taliban implemented), they would not be able to currently apply for a passport.

3. This will be a gateway to worse things to come. Once this is the norm, and people are used to this, soon you will have to be fingerprinted to enter into every country. Slowly our rights are being taken away from us. It's the attitude of "sure if I have nothing to hide then what's the problem?" that is the problem.

A slipperary slope argument on any issue is never really convincing.

Capt'n Midnight

I don't like where this could go.

In the US at least one IT company has a comms room only accessable by employees who have been "Voulantarily" chipped. The technology is out there, all guard dogs in this country have have had to had RFID tags for years now. I still reckon that one of the smaller asian countries would be the first to chip it's citizens

Thin foil passport holders then.

In the short term I'd be more worried about the US airlines sharing your data out.

Civilian_Target

robinph wrote:

I forgot about the RFID thing. That means that someone can read you passport details from you just by you walking past them with your passport in your pocket if they have the scanner. Dead handy I'm sure if your struggling to carry your bags off the plane through immigration and cannot be botherd to dig around in your bag for your passport do bo you really want your information that freely accessible to anyone with a scanner?

Depends on the tags, but yeah, unless it's connecting to an internet database, false identities can be easily generated by anyone with a writer. And if it is internet connected, anyone with a reader could theoretically steal your complete identity, although some tags have an inbuilt hardware identity to prevent this.

cournioni

Does this mean that I get to change the photo on my current passport? Woohoo!

shnaek

I think it is wonderful that some posters here have such trust and love for big brother government that they are willing to bow down and provide all the details of their existence to big brother government to do with as it pleases.

Big brother government and it's military, policing and commercial arms will do wonderful things with fingerprints, iris scans, dna and all the other details of the children’s lives.

It is truly joyous to see such faith in US corporations, oil giants, the CIA, along with our own Fine Fail government and civil service, and the EU.

This biometric passport is a token of our love and trust in the establishment, providing our rulers with the means to rid us of the terrible terrorists and criminals who are neutered by this wonderful technology which is infallible.

Long live our leaders!

tba

This means we can go to the US without a Visa, no change there really. But I have a question for people here, can I travel around Europe without a Passport.. Yes all I need is ID if a cop asks me. I cant get on a plane though I need a passport for that, This Biometric ID stuff is being pushed by airlines, for what reason I can only guess but the sooner we run out of fuel for the bloody things the better.

bushy...

" According to the ATA, at a consumption rate of 19.5 billion gallons per year, ..."
from here

casey212

If someone wants to get a fake passport, biometrics, fingerprinting will not stop them. Stop believing all this terrorist talk. There are no terrorists.

How many Terrosirts have been "intercepted" at Dublin airport in the last 10 years, you've guessed it, none.

With these type of measures there is always the reason given to the public and then the real reason, remember that. That real reason is a total survelliance society.

casey212

shnaek wrote: »

I think it is wonderful that some posters here have such trust and love for big brother government that they are willing to bow down and provide all the details of their existence to big brother government to do with as it pleases.

Big brother government and it's military, policing and commercial arms will do wonderful things with fingerprints, iris scans, dna and all the other details of the children’s lives.

It is truly joyous to see such faith in US corporations, oil giants, the CIA, along with our own Fine Fail government and civil service, and the EU.

This biometric passport is a token of our love and trust in the establishment, providing our rulers with the means to rid us of the terrible terrorists and criminals who are neutered by this wonderful technology which is infallible.

Long live our leaders!

Beautiful post. The problem is that plenty of people really do think like this.

Guy:Incognito

Holy digging up old thread Batman.

casey212 wrote: »

There are no terrorists..

Tell that to the poeple of Northern Ireland

casey212 wrote: »

How many Terrosirts have been "intercepted" at Dublin airport in the last 10 years, you've guessed it, none.
.

Theres not exactly anything here worth crashing an airplane* into though, is there?





*an example.

Overheal

all I can say is HAHA FCUK YOU ALL

I refer to the more racially inclined from the other thread. Thx.

see this makes more sense to me.

EDIT: im not saying i welcome any increase in Big Brother surveillance but at least they arent being racial about it