Topic awaiting preservation: All Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed

All Britons Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed

quote:

---

All Britons Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed

By Mark Sage, PA News, in New York

All British travellers arriving in the United States will be fingerprinted and photographed from tomorrow.

Until now, the procedure applied only to visa holders, but Homeland Security officials decided to expand the programme.

It means even travellers arriving under the visa waiver programme will have their digital photographs taken and fingerprints scanned.

The new policy affects people from 22 countries, including Britain, who are able to travel to the US without a visa for less than three months, provided they are not seeking work.

Britons, and other foreign nationals travelling under the visa waiver programme, will now be screened when they arrive at the at 115 major airports and 14 major seaports in the US.

The information will be checked against security databases to verify the travellers? papers and flag names which appear on terrorist or law enforcement watch lists.

The Department of Homeland Security estimates the new requirement will affect 33,000 people coming to the United States every day.

The Association of British Travel Agents raised concerns that the policy could result in even longer immigration queues at US airports.

A spokeswoman in London said the problems may be worse at bottle necks like Miami, Dulles in Washington and Houston, Texas.

She added: ?The US authorities have assured us that they have appropriately resourced airports, so now it is a matter of seeing whether it is implemented smoothly.?

She said some travellers had raised concerns about privacy.

But she added: ?We think it will probably enhance the safety for travellers to the US.?

---

This really bothers me, because it effects my wife (who is a German national). I can only hope that this preceedure gets axed, eventually.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

I think it's a good thing all-in-all... But they should also implement it on other means of travel (ie: ships). Its messed up but I can understand it...

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

and the line between security and paranoia thins even further ...

--------------
"...cause it's a war between evil and it's a war between good ..."

As does the line between security and our freedoms.

-----------------------------------------------
TiNNoS || My Forums || My Gallery

Well. I know I won't be traveling to the us while that rule is in effect.
Don't want my money? Fine. I'll not be criminalized without reason.

I don't enjoy it, since I've people in the US who're like family to me.

so long,
->Tyberius Prime


BlackHat: May I suggest you tone that signature down a bit? As much as I enjoy such a sight, this is a minor friendly forum, we'd rather not shock any parents. Also I suspect that this image is not your own work and you don't have the right to use it like this.

I'm at 100% with Tyberius Prime on that point.
That's funny I've had never seen Black Hat's sigs. It has always been blocked by the custom CSS of FireFox

I don't see anything wrong with this rule except longer immigration queues. Most, if not all, American citizens have been fingerprinted and photographed sometime in the past. Why not foreign visitors? After all, America isn't their country. There isn't a good reason why an organization such as the U.S. Government shouldn't maintain at least a minimum profile of visitors for security and fairness.

Saving bandwidth...

A little article i did read last week said something like this:

"Terrosists think the newlong cue lines and crowded airports are good targets, al lot of damage could be done with some small explosives. The terrorists don't even have to enter the country anymore.....
New technologies and more security personnel will be used to shorten the cue lines."

Then there was this "accident" in the uk with an reporter who could easily enter an airport and walk around freely in all the restricted areas.

A week later the belgium TV showed an documentary from an other Reporter which showed that the reporter put some grey clay (this could be easily some C4 explosives) in a food-cart used by the cabine personnel. And he had time to film it too, also the guy had No Security training whatsoever, he lied about his studies and noone had checked on it.
He proofed to me that whoever who fits in a security suit is able to enter all different kind of areas on an airport and do all different kind off damage. So even more security guards are needed to check on the security guys, so the chance of more security guys with bad credentials will enter the airports, again more checking is needed, more personnel is added.....and so on.


I don't think that criminallizing people from other countries, or ten security guys for each passenger will make a country more secure. Especially when a country sells everything you need to make trouble and do damage in almost any shopping mall.

Securing you buildings, make it possible for people to leave very fast when something does happen, increasing the strengh of targets and stuff like that makes much more sense in my eyes.

just my 2c

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

Being fingerprinted and photographed isn't criminalization. C'mon... get real.

I agree, it is not criminalization. However, it has been reserved for criminals, in the past. What I don't like about it, is that it leaves a permanent record, and way of identifying people, that could be given further.

I also find it personally insulting to my wife. She is outraged, and I can't blame her. Even the Germans, with their Orderliness and law-crazy society, respects Personal Privacy Laws, in this respect.

Just another step, in a long series of steps, back to 1984.

This is not the America that I served, and fought a war for.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

^and that says it all.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

I fail to see how this invades anyone's privacy. What exactly do you/your wife think they are going to do with these photos and fingerprints, sell them on eBay? Do you think while they're fingerprinting you they're going to slip some implant under your fingernails that will allow them to track your every move?

It's just a photo and a fingerprint folks. It in no way "criminalizes" you; that's just silly. I was fingerprinted several times in elementary school as a safety precaution for missing children/kidnapping kind of things. I was far from incensed.

I don't think this is a bad idea at all.

Oh, and WS: "...and way of identifying people, that could be given further." Care to explain what "given further" means?

:::11oh1:::

(Edited by krets on 10-08-2004 00:09)

They're going to cut out their faces and put them on dirty video tapes and send them to their friends and relatives.

I personally don't really give a crap if someone wants my fingerprint and a picture. I wouldn't unless I was doing something illegal.

Oh wow, they'll know who I am. Big whoop.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:
... it leaves a permanent record, and way of identifying people ...

---

Yea, that's a good thing. Names do that too which is why a newborn is usually given one.

quote:

---

I also find it personally insulting to my wife.

---

Now, are you insulted or are just observing that your wife is insulted? Either way, why would one be insulted?

quote:

---

She is outraged, and I can't blame her.

---

Why is she outraged? You can blame her for being outraged because, y'know, emotions are singular.

quote:

---

Even the Germans, with their Orderliness and law-crazy society, respects Personal Privacy Laws, in this respect.

---

Okay... that has nothing to do with the topic...

quote:

---

This is not the America that I served, and fought a war for.

---

Yes, it is. Your opinion has only changed.

Well, then let me spell it out for you all.

I used to work in a business, where tracking down people was part of the job. Stuff like this just makes it easier. You are also not really thinking, further than the borders of the US, which is pretty typical.

Some things, that are not considered illegal in the US, might be in other countries, and vice versa. Can anyone say, with 100% certainty, that such information is going to be protected?

What about the potiential for abuse?

Meta -

quote:

---

Yea, that's a good thing. Names do that too which is why a newborn is usually given one.

---

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you. A name itself, doesn't allow one to track much down, really. Unless it is a really unusual name. The name John Smith in america will get you nowhere fast.

Krets, you were once a schoolteacher...you know about the Constitution, and about history. I would have hoped you would have a much better understanding, of where I am coming from. Apparently not. Sad.

Be it as it may, I'm out of this thread. Maybe it will happen to one of you. And maybe, you will be the one concerned. As if it is going to stop terrorists from blowing themselves up. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. They'll just select those, who have no prior records.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

The fact that there are so many people who see no harm in this worries me, really worries me. I can only imagine that they have become so desensitized to it, by being catalogued, assessed, processed and "herded" into governmentally defined catagories since birth, that they think it is normal.
I can totally understand the need for vigilant security in these troubled times, but this is not the way.
People often try to justify this by saying if you are not breaking the law then you have nothing to hide or worry about.
The law changes every day, you do not know what will happen in the future. How long ago was it illegal to drink alcohol in the USA? A few years ago I could take a bull terrier for a walk on a lead legally. Now I have to mussel it or I can be arrested. The law changes all the time.
These may be bad examples (I have a gift for bad examples) but, from where I stand, I see personal liberties and freedom being eroded almost an a daily basis.


:::tao::: ::cell::

(Edited by Tao on 10-09-2004 01:16)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Some things, that are not considered illegal in the US, might be in other countries, and vice versa. Can anyone say, with 100% certainty, that such information is going to be protected? What about the potiential for abuse?

---

That's a laughable argument. The U.S. government already has a photographic record of nearly every U.S. citizen that has obtained an identification card or driver's license at least once in their life. If U.S. citizens are required to submit information about themselves to their government, non-citizens should be subject to even more scrutiny. The fingerprints taken allow governmental agencies to identify those marked by Interpol (and foreign intelligence/police services). This therefore helps to aid foreign relations as well as protect us, the citizens, from threats.

quote:

---

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you. A name itself, doesn't allow one to track much down, really. Unless it is a really unusual name. The name John Smith in america will get you nowhere fast.

---

Well, you often say stupid things and this will just be added to your collection. You said that this method of recording U.S. visitors is a method for leaving "a permanent record and a way of identifying people." Names do the same thing. You're the one who added the tracking attribute to your argument after I made the last statement. I only said that names leave a permanent record and names are a way of identification.

quote:

---

Krets, you were once a schoolteacher...you know about the Constitution, and about history. I would have hoped you would have a much better understanding, of where I am coming from. Apparently not. Sad.

---

You don't need to work or have worked in education in order to know U.S. history. In fact, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are posted on the U.S. Congress's Web site which is available for all to see and read. Moreover, nowhere in either document is mentioned that photographs and fingerprints are "personal insults" or invasions of privacy.

quote:

---

Be it as it may, I'm out of this thread.

---

Good because it's quite clear that you lack rational or even semi-intelligent arguments to support your cockamamie ideas about privacy.

quote:

---

Tao said:

The fact that there are so many people who see no harm in this worries me, really worries me. I can only imagine that they have become so desensitized to it, by being catalogued, assessed, processed and "herded" into governmentally defined catagories since birth, that they think it is normal.

---

It is normal. Categorization is a natural cognitive process. We use it constantly to determine right from wrong, west from east, idiot from intellectual, Arab from Israeli, Italian from Russian, glass from plastic, etc. Categorization is used in graphic design, in advertising, in marketing, and in all facets of life.

quote:

---

I can totally understand the need for vigilant security in these troubled times, but this is not the way.

---

So you think non-Americans are righted to freely trespass into United States territory without being subjected to any scrutiny? That's silly. Non-citizens are permitted entry; they aren't righted and they are not subject to the same rights as citizens.

quote:

---

The law changes every day, you do not know what will happen in the future. How long ago was it illegal to drink alcohol in the USA? A few years ago I could take a bull terrier for a walk on a lead legally. Now I have to mussel it or I can be arrested. The law changes all the time. These may be bad examples (I have a gift for bad examples) but, from where I stand, I see personal liberties and freedom being eroded almost an a daily basis.

---

You're right. The future is forever unknown so cease assuming what it may hold for civil liberties.

just out of curiosity, i wonder how the members of this forum define "the right to privacy?" what do you think that means? what "rights" need to be private?

i'll start the list...

1. what happens in our bedroom (our sex life)
2. how we vote
3. what happens in our homes
4. our conversations
a. on the telephone
b. in our mail
c. in our email + email address
d. live and in person
7. who we talk to
8. whether or not we wear underwear
9. who we use for isp service (in rl - obviously ip is viewable to many on the internet *while* we are connected.)
10. which credit cards we have
11. how much we are in debt
12. how much we spend and who or what we spend it on (except at tax time :p )
13. what we drink and how much
14. what we eat and how much
15. who we like and don't like
16. how often we bathe
17. who does our laundry
18. where we vacation/holiday
19. if we have a religion
a. if we practice that religion...
...

I think claims of right to privacy are only valid when that which is private does not contradict the laws of the State in which the claimant resides. Some examples...

* You have a right to privacy in the bedroom if you're not using children to produce pornographic media or raping men/women, etc.
* You have a right to privacy in discussion through any medium as long as such discussion does not involve plots to murder with intent to perform according to the plot, etc.

Privacy is a subjective and sensitive issue. Some people would maintain that their right to privacy is being infringed when they are required to "show themselves" when they enter another person's home but I say that's rubbish.

You're one smart fella metahuman, you certainly put me in my place eh?
You managed to quote my whole previous post, cut and pasted each paragraph, and still read your own twisted interpretation into it!
After enlightening me about the "normal" cognitive process in such an arrogant manner

quote:

---

Categorization is a natural cognitive process. We use it constantly to determine right from wrong, west from east, idiot from intellectual, Arab from Israeli, Italian from Russian, glass from plastic, etc. Categorization is used in graphic design, in advertising, in marketing, and in all facets of life.

---

Oh, you really thought needed to hear that?

You say

quote:

---

So you think non-Americans are righted to freely trespass into United States territory without being subjected to any scrutiny? That's silly. Non-citizens are permitted entry; they aren't righted and they are not subject to the same rights as citizens.

---

Where did I say that fella? Well ?
Metamouth strikes again.

:::tao::: ::cell::

quote:

---

metahuman said
I think claims of right to privacy are only valid when that which is private does not contradict the laws of the State in which the claimant resides. Some examples...

---

sometimes the laws need changing.. not using children is positive, yet there were (and may yet be) laws which prohibit certain sexual acts between consenting adult partners. why should what consenting adults do sexually be the business of the government?

quote:

---

Some people would maintain that their right to privacy is being infringed when they are required to "show themselves" when they enter another person's home...

---

say what? you mean like a thief?

Actually, my image and my fingerprints are my property. I don't know about other countries, but in France your image/voice/fingerprints/... can not be used without your conscent. I understand I have to and fully agree to provide them to get/renew my ID card in my country but I don't want to give them to another government. My ID/passeport is quite enough to identify me at the borders and airports. I know this new law also affect the short term trips that don't need a VISA, but when a VISA is needed you have to identify yourself at the embassy and give the reasons and proofs of validity of your trip, so if the US government wants to check every single person going in their country, why don't they simply require a VISA for everybody ? And as Tyberius Prime said above, I don't want to go through some processes that are applied to criminals. What about the innocence presumption.



(Edited by poi on 10-09-2004 14:12)

poi, i believe that is also true in the u.s. that our voice and image are private, otherwise celebrities and other actors wouldn't be able to sue those who use their images/voice without their consent.

As paranoid as I tend to be, and as much as I despise increased government control....

I just can't manage to find a real issue with this...

*why* should the government not have solid information on who is crossing the national borders? Why is this in any way invading your privacy? If you're here, and you need to document that you're here, why is it any more invasive, insulting, angering, or anything else to have that documentation verified?

They can scan your bags, search your body, question you all day long, but documenting your identity is problematic?

I really can't see the issue here.

quote:

---

Tao said:

You're one smart fella metahuman, you certainly put me in my place eh?

---

Yes, I sure am and I sure did. Such is evident because the only response you could proffer was ad hominem.

quote:

---

poi said:

Actually, my image and my fingerprints are my property. I don't know about other countries, but in France your image/voice/fingerprints/... can not be used without your conscent.

---

French law is irrelevant. If you're entering the U.S., you must abide by U.S. laws and regulations. In contract law we have what's called an implied-in-fact contract. That's a contract to which you agree based on your behavior. You enter into an implied-in-fact contract by entering the United States.

quote:

---

I don't want to go through some processes that are applied to criminals. What about the innocence presumption.

---

Still, you fail to comprehend that being processed through more thorough identification processes is not criminalization.

When you travel overseas (or even within your own country) you've already given up far more valuable information for tracking you down than what a photo or fingerprint would provide. Passport information, other identification, addresses, phone numbers, and possibly even credit card information. All of that is easily available to any government office that might request it from an airline.

I'm still not clear on exactly why WS thinks this is such a huge abuse of privacy since he has never given any solid reason besides "potential for abuse." If you don't give the government any reason to track you down why would they waste the money and manpower to do it? If you do give them reason, I think it's a good idea to have as much information as possible about you.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone has objections to such a policy, they should just not come to the US.

:::11oh1:::

I'll go with krets on this, as long as the information is very clearly defined for what it can be used for in court, and everyone is made aware of it before they travel. These new regulations arn't made to prosecute travellers for small offences they might commit while in the country, and we'll have to trust the court system to make sure the power isn't abused (lets hold judgement on the law enforcement - until they actually do something wrong, so no claiming potential for abuse).

Seriously, you have no problem with a government keeping tabs on something as private as how much its citizens earn, for the purpose of penalizing them for earning it? But you find something wrong with taking pictures of non-citizens entering the country. That's backwards logic. Even if fingerprinting/photographing was unconstitutional, the constitution should protect the citizens of the United States, not those of the United Kingdom.

There are far more serious issues to deal with, than rules of entering the country.

quote:

---

krets said: As far as I'm concerned, if someone has objections to such a policy, they should just not come to the US.

---

That about sums it up.

I really don't think it is entirely necessary though . . . I'd rather we racially profiled those fitting the description of 99% of the worlds terrorists. That would only be common sense, but I suppose something like that is not viable in todays politically correct infested world. You would violate less people's privacy that way, all while accomplishing the same goal.

Ramasax

Ramasax, I think that last statement;

quote:

---

I'd rather we racially profiled those fitting the description of 99% of the worlds terrorists. That would only be common sense, but I suppose something like that is not viable in todays politically correct infested world. You would violate less people's privacy that way, all while accomplishing the same goal.

---

is outrageous and saddens me greatly. Unless of course I have misunderstood you, and indeed, what would be the racial profile of 99% of the worlds terrorists?
I live in the UK, if I had a criminal record of any description, it would already be accessible to those agencies in the US or Europe who deal with serious crime and combating terrorist activities. If I had a criminal record, my fingerprints would already be "on file".
I realise I seem to be in the minority here, indeed most of my immediate family see nothing wrong in being fingerprinted if one is going to the US, I just believe it is not the path down which we should be going.
Just recently while on a night out with a group of friends in Liverpool city centre, I was shocked to find that we were all to be seached (body and belongings) before we could enter some nightclubs, about four in all. I refused to be treated like this, and made some polite excuses to my friends and left the "party".
The search was mainly for drugs I believe but I will not tolerate this kind of thing, I'll quite happily not bother going to places that enforce such restrictions.
If I really needed to go to another country, then I would follow the customs/laws dictated by that country. That does not mean I like them or think that they are right.
Tao

quote:

---

...is outrageous and saddens me greatly. Unless of course I have misunderstood you, and indeed, what would be the racial profile of 99% of the worlds terrorists?

---

Do you really need to ask this questions Tao? I think you know the answer. . . If you say you don't you either (a) live under a rock or (b) are deluding yourself.

I'm sorry my POV saddens you, but what is truly outrageous to me is that we are searching 75 year old women and 12 year old children and now, as far as many are concerned, we are violating the privacy rights of everyone entering the country. Why waste the resources when we know exactly what the profiles of the perps are.

Why inconvenience everyone when we are truly on the lookout for a small minority of a certain group, namingly Arabs? This is not racism, but common sense.

Back in April, 9/11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines [in the U.S.] if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, because that's discriminatory."

Hmm...is 19 more than two? That train of thought, to me, is incredibly foolish and dangerous, and will cost us dearly in the end.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-10-2004 18:15)

Anyone who thinks you can racially profile 99% of all terrorists is foolish. Terrorists come in all colors and races.

The IRA has been a major terrorist threat in the UK for decades and they're all white.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Islamic terrorists, those currently the biggest threat to the US, those who would use any devastating device they can get their hands on, who believe it is a sin under their religion not to aquire those devices, come in primarily one color, one race, and one religion! This is not foolish, it is fact.

We are talking threats to the US here aren't we? Is the IRA a threat to the US? Were they responsible for the bombing of the WTC in '93, attack on the USS Cole, do I need to give you a full run-down of recent (last 2 decades) of terrorist attacks/kidnappings/hijackings/beheadings on US and US interests around the world and who has been responsible?

Once again, common sense vs. inconveniencing every person who enters our borders.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-10-2004 19:25)

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030514c2.html - so you do know better than your own goverment, ramasax?

quote:

---

The Real IRA is a militant group that seeks to end British rule in Northern Ireland and bring about the political incorporation of Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland.

---

Yes the IRA is a terrorist organization, but they are not the problem which faces the US right here and right now. The simple fact of the matter is that Islamic terrorists, made up primarily of Arab Muslims are what we in the US have to worry about and we should direct our efforts there.

That's my $.02, take it or leave it, I don't care.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Islamic terrorists, those currently the biggest threat to the US, those who would use any devastating device they can get their hands on, who believe it is a sin under their religion not to aquire
those devices, come in primarily one color, one race, and one religion! This is not foolish, it is fact.

---

The greatest threat to any empire is its citizenry, not terrorism or foreign powers. Terrorism originating from foreign regions that target local citizenry is not at all the "biggest threat" to the U.S. despite the events that transpired on 9/11. 9/11 converted many Americans' ignorance of international terrorism to ignorant paranoia of international terrorism. Today's power players merely use that senseless paranoia to move up the hierarchy of power into positions of influence. The paranoia of terrorism has thus far succeeded in the sacrifice of some civil liberties for the illusion of national security, which actually works as a detriment to terroristic attack due to the ignorance of national security that terrorists seem to possess, rather than provide actual national security. Today I attended the Chrysler Classic car races on a Navy base in San Diego. Wearing glasses, I was able to sneak items beyond the entry checkpoint within my glasses case. Those items were my car keys and some coins but imagine if what was contained in that case were explosives. At airports, the X-Ray scanners do not scan your entire body. In fact, the scan stops right above your ankles and thus allows passengers to quickly shuffle their feet beyond the scanner without being scrutinized. Imagine if such shoes contained explosives as in a past incident. Most of our coastal borders are unprotected from underwater attack. Terroristic divers could easily infiltrate the U.S. and perform their duties or plant explosives on harbored ships. Fortunately, most terrorists tend to lack the knowledge required to perform truly devastating attacks. The destruction of the Twin Towers could not be considered an intelligent attack because the attack consisted of the mere crashing of two explosive vehicles into two static structures. Moreover, those terrorists intended to knock the towers into each other as though they were trees. That is the "immense threat" with which we are dealing with: a group of savages most experienced with unsophisticated vehicular bombs.

By the way, the attack on the USS Cole was not the product of terrorists since the USS Cole is a valid military target. It was spun as a terroristic attack for obvious political reasons. Unfortunately, the spinners failed to realize that the attack on the USS Cole was a declaration of war, which is probably the reason terrorist groups like al-Qaida claimed before 9/11 that they are at war with the United States. Incompetence caused 9/11 and nobody was fired... except Bill Maher and perhaps Dennis Miller. Since the aforementioned declaration of war was mostly ignored, one could argue, considering the process-oriented culture of the Muslims (e.g., inconsistent warfare (e.g., opposing sides break for religious tradition, hit n' run tactics, no large-scale 24/7 engagements like Western nations)), that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a result of the ongoing "terrorists"-U.S. war. Some would counter, "But they're terrorists because they attacked civilians!" So did Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. Before Churchill, wars were primarily fought between opposing armies and efforts were made to decrease and prevent civilian casualties. In the American Revolution, for example, opposing armies agreed upon battlefields which were not near large populations of non-combatants. In World War II, Churchill felt he had insight into Hitler's thinking and ordered the bombing of Dresden in Germany. Of course, this was not only a strategic move which influenced Hitler to move his troops into a strategically unsound position but also a political action to impress Stalin, stop Germany (Britain's rival at the time), and make certain the Soviets would seize a dead city. Still, it was Churchill that began the trend of "area bombing" (tactic invented by British Air Marshal Arthur Harris) civilian centers and nearly every war-involved nation has followed his lead since.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-11-2004 10:41)

quote:

---

metahuman: Still, you fail to comprehend that being processed through more thorough identification processes is not criminalization

---

Yes, but I'm not the only one.

quote:

---

krets said: As far as I'm concerned, if someone has objections to such a policy, they should just not come to the US.

---

Indeed, that's another reason that make me reluctant to go the US.

quote:

---

ramasax: I'd rather we racially profiled those fitting the description of 99% of the worlds terrorists. (...)

---

Wow! This is really insulting and criminalizing. That's amazing to still hear that sort of garbage. Wake up, the time where there was a separate queue for black people is gone ! And it's not time to create a separate queue for different people.

If that group of people fits the bill then why the hell not? You are just being stupid if you can't recognize that.

And you are "just" being racist by doing a discrimination ( and criminilazition ) based on ethnic and/or religious criterias. That's absolutely amazing.

Ramasax: You don't seem to understand that not all terrorists look alike. Reality isn't Counter-Strike.

There is nothing racist about it. I am not talking camps here, I am talking about putting more scrutiny on the ethnic group in question. There is nothing criminalizing about it and if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about. You are simply blinded by political correctness and are using the "racist" comment to detract from my point, which I in no way, shape, or form ever expected you to be able to understand in the first place. I know where you and your country stand poi.

Meta: I do not play counter-strike, so I really cannot know what you are insinuating. I do understand the terrorists are overwhelmingly as I have described above. Male Arab Muslims. Am I the only one with enough balls to come out and say it, or has the world gone mad?

Maybe we are living in 2 different worlds, but last I heard the extremist wing of Islam had declared war on the western world and my country in particular. That in itself is enough to warrant profiling. I am not worried about inconveniencing the few to protect the many, especially when the lives of my loved ones are on the line.

People like you scare me. And yes, I scare you too. The divide is large.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-13-2004 03:18)

so we arrest all the male arab muslims and let chechen female suicide bombers, south-east asian war lords, south american drug leaders and pimply american shoe-bombers, even, breeze through customs for fear of inconveniencing them?

last i heard, male arab muslims weren't the only demographic keen on obliterating americans.

[insert fabulous sig here]

I must say, that is an extremely narrow and dangerous outlook Ram.

I am not totally against racial profiling - it most certainly has it's uses, and to ignore them for the sake of political correctness is absurd. Profiling is something that is used in many aspects of life, and comes in quite handy. We record all kinds of demographic information all the time and use it for many purposes. Many times this information includes our ethnicity.
To say that we can't use such statistical information as a tool to aid our understanding and preparedness is something I can't fathom.

On the other hand, to suggest that we need to just nail the arabs is a whole different can o' worms.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-13-2004 05:23)

Ramasax: The problem is that the traditional concept of race is primitive at best; thus, all notions of racial profiling are primitive and inefficient. The adages "nothing is as it seems" and "appearances aren't everything" hold true. Moreover, do you really want a bureaucratic government supported by an overly-religious populace in charge of racial profiling? Nazi Germany demonstrated that governmental racial profiling isn't a good idea.

Read Steve Olson's Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins. It's inexpensive for what its information is worth. I highly recommend you read it.

quote:

---

In a journey across four continents, acclaimed science writer Steve Olson traces the origins of modern humans and the migrations of our ancestors throughout the world over the past 150,000 years. Like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, Mapping Human History is a groundbreaking synthesis of science and history. Drawing on a wide range of sources, including the latest genetic research, linguistic evidence, and archaeological findings, Olson reveals the surprising unity among modern humans and "demonstrates just how naive some of our ideas about our human ancestry have been" (Discover). Olson offers a genealogy of all humanity, explaining, for instance, why everyone can claim Julius Caesar and Confucius as forebears. Olson also provides startling new perspectives on the invention of agriculture, the peopling of the Americas, the origins of language, the history of the Jews, and more. An engaging and lucid account, Mapping Human History will forever change how we think about ourselves and our relations with others.

---

Unlike DL-44, I am entirely against the application of the traditional concept of race and therefore racial profiling.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-13-2004 06:30)

DL: Surprising as this may sound we are not so far apart in our opinions here. I have no arguments with what you say. If I may ask, what makes what I am saying so much more different and dangerous as what you are purveying? Perhaps it is how you see me and interpret me, being that I in many of your eyes am what you would call a far-right-winger?

Meta: Your argument is irrelevent. The fact that you are against the application of traditional concept of race and profiling is irrelevent. I realize that human history binds all races. And while the book you cite sounds interesting, and looks like a worthwhile read, it in this case, to me, it is irrelevent. Perhaps I am missing the point above, but it does not speak to me on this topic.

And how did I know somebody would bring Nazism into this? God man, I am talking about placing more scrutiny on one race over another because of the fact that the race in question has been in the majority where these types of acts of violence are concerned. I am not talking about racial genocide. I am not talking about gas chambers and fiery furnaces and burning people alive. And I most certainly am not talking about treating them as second class people. That is in the pervue of the Islamo-facists.

We did far more during WWII with the Japanese here after Pearl Harbor, and we did not fall into Hitler-esque slaughter because we are a generally compassionate, intelligent country built upon fairness and equlity.

The Muslim Extremist community racially profiles us all on a daily basis. Not scrutiny as I am suggesting, but 'death to all' kind of profiling. They have declared war on all non-believers. We are the infidels, left, right, and middle makes no difference to them. They would just as soon behead Mr. Moore as they would President Bush or even a a small American child. And it goes further than religion, they are killing by the thousands in Darfour, ethnic cleansing of the black Muslims. They stand for one thing and one thing only, a Militant Arab Muslim hold over the entire world and annihlation of the zionist pigs. They will, and I believe have shown time and time again, use any available means to accomplish this goal. They are a scourge and must be dealt with and if that means more scrutiny on those whom share their ethnicity so be it. If it were my race that was responsible for these horrible acts, I would have no problem facing up to that scrutiny, because I have done nothing wrong. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. And yes, this is always open to corruption, but what the hell isn't?

Did white Christians attack the Kohbar towers? If so then I would be ok with racially profiling that crowd?
Did asian monks attack the WTC in 1993? If so, single them out.
Do children and grandmothers dacapitate infidels on a nearly daily ritual? If so, single them out.
Did black gang members fly planes into the WTC on Spetember 11th 2001? If so, single them out.

When the police are looking for a murderer and have a description of the perp, do they blindly deny that desciption, where race is usually the most important aspect, and scrutinize everyone? No, they start at a logical place, with the description.

I never pretended that racial profiling is perfect. I totally agree that it is a flawed system. To me though, it is far less flawed than the ridiculously inefficient system they are setting up. Sure, racial profiling is not always going to be correct as McVeigh showed us at OKC (this one is debatable as there are connections, all improvable of course, but not much in this world is ever provable outside of the realm of science) and as LaSun points out above, but it is certainly more viable and logical than tracking children, grandmothers, middle-aged balding white businessmen, Japanese tourists, etc... It is getting to the point now that Arabs are under far less scrutiny than the rest of us because airlines are fearful of being sued and or fined for making the wrong move.

Like it or not, these attacks in recent years upon the US all have one thing in common, they have all been perpetrated by one ethnic group and/or religion. Spin it any way you like, that is the simple truth and you cannot run from the logical conclusion.

I have stated my case. *shrugs* To each his own.

Ramasax

as 'primitive and inefficient' as racial profiling is, you have to admit it's convenient. and in some cases, it's all we've got to work with.

i'm not in any rush to go back to the states, especially not now. not because i'm laying any huge claims to privacy and whatever human rights i might have, but because it's all getting so damned tedious and will probably be more so for me than others (on his way back from the states last year, my brother was stopped, searched and interrogated twice because, they said, he looks arabic and our middle-eastern sounding last name was supposedly on some alert list somewhere).

but homeland security is homeland security. if i ran a country that inundated with terrorist threats (let's not even go into how those came about) i'd do whatever it takes to keep it safe. i'd fingerprint and photograph and racially profile the asses off of anybody if there was the tiniest inkling that he or she could possibly bomb my family while they slept.

the idea, however, that only one particular demographic is inclined to terrorism is naive. it's just about as silly as when my guy cousin got pulled over by cops one night because he was a brown boy driving a nice car while just down the road, almost at the same time, a white boy from out of town is drive-by shooting his former-friend in the face.

if you're going to crackdown on security, you're going to have to do it with everybody. it's sad, desperate and still so terribly inefficient, but it seems to be all the US has got to work with these days.

[insert fabulous sig here]

<ramasax posted while i was typing...>

(Edited by LaSun on 10-13-2004 11:32)

(Edited by LaSun on 10-13-2004 11:46)

bloody double post

(Edited by LaSun on 10-13-2004 11:12)

quote:

---

Ramasax: And how did I know somebody would bring Nazism into this? ...

---

You know the holocaust began "simply" by fingerpointing the jews. But according to your messages, it's not bad to fingerpoint and scrutinize (?) a given "race". BTW I dislike that word as it is absolutely irrelevent, but you seem to use it to name various regilious believers ... which is even more irrevelent.

quote:

---

We did far more during WWII with the Japanese here after Pearl Harbor, and we did not fall into Hitler-esque slaughter because we are a generally compassionate, intelligent country built upon fairness and equlity.

---

You said equality. Where is the equality of treatment in your intent to racially profile the people ?

I generally avoid that kind of statement, but Ramasax, your view is narrow minded and dangerous.



(Edited by poi on 10-13-2004 13:49)

MH - I am familiar with all of this. It has no bearing.

Your feeling on the 'traditional concept of race' does not effect the reality of the situation.

'Class' is something that is purely a social construct. It is also a major factor in many profiling instances, and - like race - is one of mnay factors that can point investigators in the right direction.

Now, obviously the phrase 'racial profiling' can be used in different ways. In most cases, the most negative connotation is inferred.

All I am saying is that race, along with the rest of our characteristics, can be used in an effecitve manner.

Obviously, singling out all arabs, or people who "look like arabs" is not what we need to do.

But ingoring ethnicity based on political correctness or philosophical waxing is silly.




(Edited by DL-44 on 10-13-2004 15:37)

Racial profiling is a "convenient" tool for persecution. My arguments are not irrelevant, Ramasax. Who the hell do you think you are.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Meta: Your argument is irrelevent.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

The fact that you are against the application of traditional concept of race and profiling is irrelevent.

---

If that is true, then the fact that you are for it is also irrelevant. So, incorrect.

quote:

---

I realize that human history binds all races. And while the book you cite sounds interesting, and looks like a worthwhile read, it in this case, to me, it is irrelevent.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

Perhaps I am missing the point above, but it does not speak to me on this topic.

---

I wouldn't expect a bigot to understand anyway.

quote:

---

And how did I know somebody would bring Nazism into this?

---

Perhaps because you are a Nazi? Gee, I don't know.

quote:

---

God man, I am talking about placing more scrutiny on one race over another because of the fact that the race in question has been in the majority where these types of acts of violence are concerned. I am not talking about racial genocide. I am not talking about gas chambers and fiery furnaces and burning people alive. And I most certainly am not talking about treating them as second class people. That is in the pervue of the Islamo-facists.

---

I suppose we should also revert public policy to discriminating blacks since there tends to more black men in prisons than other "races." Oh please...

quote:

---

We did far more during WWII with the Japanese here after Pearl Harbor, and we did not fall into Hitler-esque slaughter because we are a generally compassionate, intelligent country built upon fairness and equlity.

---

That's a laugh. You're clearly ignorant of history (and current events). Read this and learn about the Alien Enemies Act.

quote:

---

The Muslim Extremist community racially profiles us all on a daily basis. Not scrutiny as I am suggesting, but 'death to all' kind of profiling. They have declared war on all non-believers. We are the infidels, left, right, and middle makes no difference to them. They would just as soon behead Mr. Moore as they would President Bush or even a a small American child. And it goes further than religion, they are killing by the thousands in Darfour, ethnic cleansing of the black Muslims. They stand for one thing and one thing only, a Militant Arab Muslim hold over the entire world and annihlation of the zionist pigs.

---

Argument from ignorance. You fail to realize that many of the beheadings in the Middle East are done by criminal and governmental groups. They aren't necessarily terrorist factions. Why do people forget about criminals during wartime. Bah.

quote:

---

They will, and I believe they have shown time and time again, use any available means to accomplish this goal. They are a scourge and must be dealt with and if that means more scrutiny on those whom share their ethnicity so be it. If it were my race that was responsible for these horrible acts, I would have no problem facing up to that scrutiny, because I have done nothing wrong. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. And yes, this is always open to corruption, but what the hell isn't?

---

Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!

quote:

---

Did white Christians attack the Kohbar towers? If so then I would be ok with racially profiling that crowd?
Did asian monks attack the WTC in 1993? If so, single them out.
Do children and grandmothers dacapitate infidels on a nearly daily ritual? If so, single them out.
Did black gang members fly planes into the WTC on Spetember 11th 2001? If so, single them out.

When the police are looking for a murderer and have a description of the perp, do they blindly deny that desciption, where race is usually the most important aspect, and scrutinize everyone? No, they start at a logical place, with the description.

---

Since when did racial profiling ever solve anything? It's not a solution. It's a "convenient" way to circumvent the problem while maintaining an illusion of effect. It's analogous to medicine: the solution to curing a group of sick children is to enlist a doctor to treat them. You don't solve the problem by singling out sick children and placing them in a room separate from the rest. That only contains the problem and makes the problem worse inside the room. Additionally, you don't go around an elementary school herding a group of ethnic children, known for their histories of illness, into a prison (a.k.a. concentration camp) in order to "prevent" future illnesses from occurring. Any sane and rational person would disagree with you.

quote:

---

I never pretended that racial profiling is perfect. I totally agree that it is a flawed system.

---

You pretended and still are pretending that racial profiling is somehow efficient. For every Middle Eastern terrorist there are how many innocent Middle Easterners whom merely want to live their lives? 10? 1,000? 100,000?

quote:

---

To me though, it is far less flawed than the ridiculously inefficient system they are setting up. Sure, racial profiling is not always going to be correct as McVeigh showed us at OKC(this one is debatable as there are connections, all improvable of course, but not much in this world is ever provable outside of the realm of science) and as LaSun points out above, but it is certainly more viable and logical than tracking children, grandmothers, middle-aged balding white businessmen, Japanese tourists, etc... It is getting to the point now that Arabs are under far less scrutiny than the rest of us because airlines are fearful of being sued and or fined for making the wrong move.

---

That's bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit.

quote:

---

Like it or not, these attacks in recent years upon the US all have one thing in common, they have all been perpetrated by one ethnic group and/or religion. Spin it any way you like, that is the simple truth and you cannot run from the logical conclusion.

---

What you've argued for is neither truth nor logical... nor reasonable... nor rational... nor sane... nor justified...

(Edited by metahuman on 10-13-2004 20:23)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

MH - I am familiar with all of this. It has no bearing.

---

It has bearing.

quote:

---

Your feeling on the 'traditional concept of race' does not effect the reality of the situation.

---

The traditional concept of race is a subjective classification intended for discriminatory practices. My "feeling" about race is not a feeling at all. The latest genetic, psychological, and sociological research (scientific research, not "philosophical waxing" or "political correctness") suggests that the traditional concept of race is primitive at best and a motivator for prejudice.

quote:

---

'Class' is something that is purely a social construct. It is also a major factor in many profiling instances, and - like race - is one of mnay factors that can point investigators in the right direction.

---

Class is not "purely" a social construct. It's an economic classification which is key to aristocracy and elitism.

quote:

---

All I am saying is that race, along with the rest of our characteristics, can be used in an effecitve manner.

---

What Ramasax suggested is not effective.

quote:

---

Obviously, singling out all arabs, or people who "look like arabs" is not what we need to do. But ingoring ethnicity based on political correctness or philosophical waxing is silly.

---

True.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-13-2004 20:25)

quote:

---

What Ramasax suggested is not effective.

---

Hi. I'm DL-44. I am not Ramasax, nor do I share his view.

=)

quote:

---

...suggests that the traditional concept of race is primitive at best and a motivator for prejudice.

---

It's all about context.

There is indeed a great overlpa between science and philosophy, and something can be true on a scientific level but still not be "true" in a sense that relates to the "real world".



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-14-2004 00:55)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There is indeed a great overlap between science and philosophy, and something can be true on a scientific level but still not be "true" in a sense that relates to the "real world".

---

I disagree with you to an extent. Surely, theoretical science includes much of astronomy (e.g., dark matter) but science is a method of studying the "real world" and models are tools used to represent scientific reality. Regarding truth, all "truths" are incomplete, provisional and falsifiable. Anything that is provisionally true is at least theoretically falsifiable. The scientific method is the only effective means to establish provisional truths. Philosophy rarely overlaps science and science rarely overlaps philosophy; however, each are affected by the other.

quote:

---

Eliezer Yudkowsky said:

There is no such thing as science.

Your ability to watch things fall down, and thereby formulate the Simplified Theory of Gravitation ("things fall down"), is no different, in any way, from the thoughts that let a scientist understand why a star burns. Your ability to drop a rock from your hand, and thereby squash something using the Simplified Theory of Gravitation, is no different from the thoughts that let an engineer create a nuclear submarine.

There is a tendency, in twentieth-century culture, to view science and technology as some kind of magic. People talk about nuclear weapons as if they're some sort of dark sorcery. But they aren't. The laws of physics that make nuclear weapons go off are the same laws that make the Sun burn. It's the same laws, the same equations, that keep atoms from flying apart under ordinary circumstances. If you altered the physical laws that permit atomic weapons, not only would the Sun go out, but you yourself would dissolve into a cloud of less-than-dust.

Science is the same kind of thought that lets us survive in everyday life. Not a more powerful form, or a more distilled form - the same form, just as the same laws of physics underlie nuclear weapons and your own integrity on the atomic level.

---

With that said genetics, psychology, and sociology produce empirical truths, not quackery, waxing, etc. I'm surprised that you, one of the lone voices of reason in this forum, would even suggest such a thing.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-14-2004 01:27)

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramasax said:

Meta: Your argument is irrelevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that you are against the application of traditional concept of race and profiling is irrelevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that is true, then the fact that you are for it is also irrelevant. So, incorrect.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that human history binds all races. And while the book you cite sounds interesting, and looks like a worthwhile read, it in this case, to me, it is irrelevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DL-44 said:

MH - I am familiar with all of this. It has no bearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has bearing.

---

Wow, metahuman. Those are some pretty darn compelling arguments there. You sure have me convinced.

Explain to me how the "traditional concept of race" is primitive? Is it because by our nature humans categorize? You have yet to explain anything that supports your suppositions. Perhaps we could get a clearer idea of what you are driving at if you wouldn't veil your ideas in vaguaries.

quote:

---

meta: You don't solve the problem by singling out sick children and placing them in a room separate from the rest. That only contains the problem and makes the problem worse inside the room.

---

This is a pretty poor analogy... Separating the sick is part of the solution: It's called quarantine. It is how you prevent highly contagious disease from spreading. If someone is showing classic signs of Ebola, do you suggest that they remain in the general populace while receiving treatment? Do you ignore those that are also showing symptoms? Of course not. You round up everyone who is showing symptoms and everyone they have been in contact with and stick them in quarantine whether they like it or not for the general welfare of the public.

You have yet to explain why racial profiling is "ineffective" and offer up a better, more effective solution. Like it or not, race is a means of classification, just like gender, height and weight. It is ultimately a description.

Personally, I'm not above searching little old ladies or Japanese tourists or any other of the "groups" that have been mentioned, but that's just becuase I believe that anyone is capable of doing anything. However, I realistically understand that there are those that present a higher threat and given available resources are where greater attention should be paid.

Greater scrutiny of the group presenting the higher threat does not eliminate the threat entirely - that's a given. But it does reduce the threat.

What are the reasonable alternatives?

Metahuman, once again, your argument is irrelevent. You have nothing to offer but meaningless rhetoric that has no bearing on the facts or this discussion.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

---

Umm, ok. Here is where I knew you had something good to say.

quote:

---

If that is true, then the fact that you are for it is also irrelevant. So, incorrect.

---

This is an assanine statement. Saying I am incorrect means nothing if you have no argument behind your words. Once again, your argument did not speak about the issue at hand here.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

---

Again, how so?

quote:

---

I wouldn't expect a bigot to understand anyway...Perhaps because you are a Nazi? Gee, I don't know...

---

Your opinion of me is irrelevent. You don't know me, and please don't pretend to know me. This is a typical insult by a person who has given up on actually trying to argue his position because he knows he has nothing. When all else fails time to break out the scary words, eh?

How about a rational and relevent argument? That is what I was giving. I spent about an hour composing and revising my last post, giving a lot of thought to my rebuttals, all for this weak and childish response. How much time did it take you to come up with this? Two minutes in a flash of anger and non-thought?

quote:

---

Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!

---

Now you are acting like a child, which means I am retiring from this thread.

Nice chatting with you and thanks for the deep and intellectually challenging insight.

quote:

---

DL: Hi. I'm DL-44. I am not Ramasax, nor do I share his view.

---

Wow, that's news to me. lol.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

Explain to me how the "traditional concept of race" is primitive? Is it because by our nature humans categorize? You have yet to explain anything that supports your suppositions. Perhaps we could get a clearer idea of what you are driving at if you wouldn't veil your ideas in vaguaries.

---

Perhaps you should the read the book I recommended first before even thinking about competing against me intellectually.

quote:

---

This is a pretty poor analogy... Separating the sick is part of the solution: It's called quarantine. It is how you prevent highly contagious disease from spreading. If someone is showing classic signs of Ebola, do you suggest that they remain in the general populace while receiving treatment? Do you ignore those that are also showing symptoms? Of course not. You round up everyone who is showing symptoms and everyone they have been in contact with and stick them in quarantine whether they like it or not for the general welfare of the public.

---

The objective of a quarantine is to prevent the spread of a disease. Curing the disease and preventing the disease from occurring again is not a quarantine's objective. Containment is not a solution. It's a method for circumventing the problem by isolating an infected group.

quote:

---

You have yet to explain why racial profiling is "ineffective" and offer up a better, more effective solution. Like it or not, race is a means of classification, just like gender, height and weight. It is ultimately a description.

---

Taken literally, racial profiling is merely a means of classification; however, in the context of governance, the context from which you casually brought the term out, racial profiling is a tool for persecuting primitively classified groups by appearance in order to bring about some illusory solution to a problem. Historically, racial profiling has not worked and it is still ineffective for secure governance. Moreover, implementations of racial profiling have caused more harm than good. The Nazi application is a good example.

quote:

---

However, I realistically understand that there are those that present a higher threat and given available resources are where greater attention should be paid.

---

Threats should always be attended to but not all Arabs and not all Muslims are threats to the United States. Some of you have problems realizing the world is much bigger than a list of al-Qaida operatives. By the way, the U.S. publicly discovered a year or two ago that al-Qaida (and other terrorist groups) were targeting African males for their recruitment efforts.

quote:

---

Greater scrutiny of the group presenting the higher threat does not eliminate the threat entirely - that's a given. But it does reduce the threat.

---

Behavior contrary to the civil liberties of targeted groups does not reduce threat, it increases and encourages it. Such is evident with the second invasion of Iraq.

Ramasax, I'm not going to bother responding to your continued mental flatulence since the bulk of your responses consist of claims of irrelevance. Since you consider your claims of irrelevance to be intellectually stimulating, I'll set the record straight: everything you've said is either idiotic, ignorant, or incorrect. Those are typical attributes of arguments from a pseudo-intellectual stupid incompetent fool. Your "thoughtful" rebuttals lacked thoughtful response because none was merited. Interestingly, you argue that none of which I posted is relevant to the discussion, however, we are so far from the original topic that any claim of irrelevance is, to use a word you just learned, asinine. Moreover, your claims of irrelevance are invalid since the relevance which you refer to requires your respondents to agree with you and mentally operate far below their intellectual capacity. Unfortunately for you, I will not dumb down my opinions to a degree that you can possibly comprehend. If you want to discuss the issues, you'll need to come up here and to do that you'll need to climb a ladder called education for it seems to be an area in which you are lacking. Have a nice day.

There seems to be a whole load of mental and verbal flatulence going on in this thread, perhaps sticking to the original subject matter wouldn't incur this, seeing as this is the general forum and not the phylisophical one, but then... who am I to get involved!

As far as taking personal data from immigrants to the United States, well it really is a little strange, Intelligence agencies already had details on the members of the Al Qaeda that attacked the United States and could have done something about if they really wanted to, why they didn't nobody knows, why they want to take details from everybody entering the country, nobody knows, perhaps it's to ease the paranoia in the uneducated populace that's been whipped up by the media, perhaps it's also to sell to credit card companies, who knows!?

What I do know is that

quote:

---

everything you've said is either idiotic, ignorant, or incorrect. Those are typical attributes of arguments from a pseudo-intellectual stupid incompetent fool.

---

is damn right rude!

That

quote:

---

I spent about an hour composing and revising my last post, giving a lot of thought to my rebuttals, all for this weak and childish response.

---

is unnecessary, I mean calling him childish.. really! Spending one hour... HELLO!

Let's be happy people.

Cheers,

Blaise.

(Please don't flame me!)

It doesn't matter what I say, Blaise.

To Ramasax, everything I say is "irrelevant."

quote:

---

Metahuman: Perhaps you should the read the book I recommended first before even thinking about competing against me intellectually

---

First off - I am not trying to "compete" with you. I am perfectly aware of my own intellect and have no need to inflate my own ego playing "who has the bigger brain". How juvenile. I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation of which you seem incapable of participating as you are too interested in showcasing your arrogance and talking down to us mere mortals. I rather expected a retort like that.

Second - I know you're all excited to show off your shiny, new education however there are some of us out there who have this thing called a "life". We can't go out and purchase your recommended book and read it in 2.2 seconds to respond in a timely manner to a post. That's what discussion is about. You teach what you've learned, and when the rest of us have time and care enough to get greater detail on what you've taught we'll buy the book.

Third - You still have yet to supply a better alternative than categorizing on known factors such as race. And if you re-read my post, you will note that not once did I focus on Arabs or Muslims or Arab Muslims for that matter. This is a bigger picture. And yes, I know that the al-Qaeda threat does not extend only from those of Arab descent - another reason from which I refrained from specifying that group in my previous post.

On a side note - don't you find it interesting how on one hand African males are being recruited to "the cause" and on another they are being annihilated in the Sudan?

And back on topic... Maybe there is something here that I just don't get, but what is the realistic chance of misuse for fingerprints and a photo? What is the alternative if the goal is to document who comes into the country?

[edit] removing question as answer was found [/edit]

(Edited by Moon Dancer on 10-14-2004 16:42)

I'm beginning to think that nobody likes anyone in the general forum anymore, you guys should hang around the CSS and Javascript forum, people get on better there!

On a side note (or back on topic I should say), I think the only reason these details are being taken are actually for passport fraud, it may sound like extreme measures, but hey, the Australian government blow ships out the water for tresspassing in their waters, I suppose all countries will be going down this line or similar in the future, in reality this probably has very little to do with terroism, or racism for that matter.

Cheers,

Blaise

Moon Dancer:
(1a) The fact that you accused me of lacking explaination is indicative of your intent to compete.
(1b) The fact that you entered this discussion as late as you did is indicative of your unwillingness to "have an intelligent conversation." Your first response scurried to the defense of Ramasax and consisted of a number of ignorant criticisms. Moreover, you called my ideas suppositions which indeed they are not given the evidence I sourced.
(1c) Additionally, the fact that your claim to have a intelligent conversation is occupied by ad hominem conjecture is also indicative of your hypocritical intent. If you actually intended to have an intelligent discussion, perhaps I should overlook your initial impression and you should overlook mine; however, apparently that isn't the case.

(2) My responsibility is not to educate; it's your responsibility to educate yourself. If you want to learn something, the Internet is at your disposal and bookstores are also useful. In an intelligent discussion, participants will cite relevant sources to support their dissertation and others will research those sources to fully comprehend given dissertations. I seem to be the only person who has provided sources to support my ideas.

(3) I need not supply an alternative for Ramasax's primitive security tool to be realistically unworkable. Of course, I could argue that I did suggest an alternative: the alternative is to not use or support racial profiling. That is my position now.

(4) Yes, it is interesting.

(5) The realistic chance for misuse of photo and fingerprint identification is nearly null.

quote:

---

Metahuman said:
Most, if not all, American citizens have been fingerprinted and photographed sometime in the past.

---

Really now? That one's news to me. Only "government" photographs I've given up have been my passport and my drivers license, as it should be. Fingerprinted? There's no reason for most people to be fingerprinted outside the court system, or rather, most adults. Kids are far more likely to have been fingerprinted at some point in time for "safety" reasons, during those school drives or whatever they are.

On to the rest of the drivel here :

quote:

---

Metahuman said:
Moon Dancer:
(1a) The fact that you accused me of lacking explaination is indicative of your intent to compete.
(1b) The fact that you entered this discussion as late as you did is indicative of your unwillingness to "have an intelligent conversation." Your first response scurried to the defense of Ramasax and consisted of a number of ignorant criticisms. Moreover, you called my ideas suppositions which indeed they are not given the evidence I sourced.
(1c) Additionally, the fact that your claim to have a intelligent conversation is occupied by ad hominem conjecture is also indicative of your hypocritical intent. If you actually intended to have an intelligent discussion, perhaps I should overlook your initial impression and you should overlook mine; however, apparently that isn't the case.

---

First off, asking for further or more detailed explanation in now way indicates any desire to "compete." It means Moon Dancer is asking for further or more detailed explanation than what you did or did not provide. S/he's asking you to clarify what you are saying; maybe s/he is on your side and just wants to confirm that? You immediately assume someone responding to you is competing, and that you have something to "win" here.

"Entered the conversation as late as you did" means exactly what? Not everyone camps the general forums, or even the forums period. As for entering the conversation late, this thread was posted on 9/30 and you didn't "enter" it until 10/4. Whoo! You're late, boyo! Some people also read before they find a reason to reply to a thread, if at all. Some people lurk and read instead of spout of their view as if it were gospel written in stone.

As for 1c - big words, did you look them up first? The only impression that anyone can have of someone on a forum is through their words, and consistancy of posts, and the occasional use of smilies to try to convey what is usually expressed via intonation, expression and body language. And the bare text usual fails to convey those complexeties.

quote:

---

Metahuman said:
(2) My responsibility is not to educate; it's your responsibility to educate yourself. If you want to learn something, the Internet is at your disposal and bookstores are also useful. In an intelligent discussion, participants will cite relevant sources to support their dissertation and others will research those sources to fully comprehend given dissertations. I seem to be the only person who has provided sources to support my ideas.

---

Just because you link to other sources means nothing. Especially not when one of those sources is a book that someone would need to purchase before they could refute anything you said regarding that source. Citing sources really means nothing, not when people ask you for clarification. Saying "it's not my job to educate" is marginally valid, but then again, if you have the information that someone is asking for, why is it such a problem for you to share that? Would you do the same in your job if a coworker was asking for clarification about a point? "I told you were to find the information, look it up yourself.." would not fly with co-workers and definitely not your boss. Particularly not if the "favor" were ever returned to you in like fashion. Being a know-it-all prick and acting like a know-it-all prick aren't the same thing.

Your #5 - have you never heard of identity theft? I personally wouldn't trust the government or hell, other corporations to keep things straight. That's why people should check their credit histories out there. I know for a fact that there is someone else in my state that has the same first name, last name and middle initial as I do, because she has an account at the same bank that I use. The only thing "saving" me is that my accounts are all tied through my husband's name as primary account holder.

In addition, think of all the cases of mistaken identities that have happened with people being targeted because of homeland security and put on watch lists simply because of their names. The government isn't perfect, far from it, and the lessening of private rights under the Patriot Act should be disturbing to anyone, no matter if they are a US citizen or a visitor to our country. If something like this were put into place in another country, and US citizens were subjected to it, you can be sure there would be an outcry about it.

I reread this thread, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, but almost all of your posts, Metahuman, have been condescending to some degree or another. Responding to Ramasax or not, you have come across as an arrogant jackass that likes to speak down to others, and even if your information is correct (what info you will deign to share with others that is) you give the impression that others should be grateful for your participation in the thread.

And I've been "participating" in this thread since it was started, I've just felt there was anything I needed to post as part of the discussion until now.

_____________________

le coeur du feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

[quote]RhyssaFireheart said:

quote:

---

First off, asking for further or more detailed explanation in now way indicates any desire to "compete." It means Moon Dancer is asking for further or more detailed explanation than what you did or did not provide. S/he's asking you to clarify what you are saying; maybe s/he is on your side and just wants to confirm that? You immediately assume someone responding to you is competing, and that you have something to "win" here.

---

Open your eyes. Moon Dancer said, "You have yet to explain anything that supports your suppositions." Translation: "You've presented no evidence that supports your belief." Fortunately, I have presented evidence, some of you have just not cared to look at it. That evidence supports fact, not belief.

quote:

---

"Entered the conversation as late as you did" means exactly what?

---

It means the person entered the discussion late only to involve themselves in a off-topic.

quote:

---

As for 1c - big words, did you look them up first?

---

You must need a dictionary if you're asking me that.

quote:

---

The only impression that anyone can have of someone on a forum is through their words, and consistancy of posts, and the occasional use of smilies to try to convey what is usually expressed via intonation, expression and body language. And the bare text usual fails to convey those complexeties.

---

What does that have to do with anything?

quote:

---

Just because you link to other sources means nothing.

---

Incorrect. Presenting relatively unknown and esoteric information to the general public requires provision of evidence which can be used to verify the truthfulness of that information.

quote:

---

Especially not when one of those sources is a book that someone would need to purchase before they could refute anything you said regarding that source.

---

Either you're too lazy to visit an offline or online bookstore, or you're too poor to afford a book that costs ~$11. Either way, I'm not concerned.

quote:

---

Citing sources really means nothing, not when people ask you for clarification.

---

Again, incorrect. Clarification would require copying the text into digital format and violating copyright laws. It's easier to RTFM.

quote:

---

Saying "it's not my job to educate" is marginally valid, but then again, if you have the information that someone is asking for, why is it such a problem for you to share that? Would you do the same in your job if a coworker was asking for clarification about a point?

---

"Mapping Human History" is a populistic book that does a much better job than I can of communicating esoteric knowledge exoterically.

quote:

---

"I told you were to find the information, look it up yourself.." would not fly with co-workers and definitely not your boss. Particularly not if the "favor" were ever returned to you in like fashion. Being a know-it-all prick and acting like a know-it-all prick aren't the same thing.

---

Bad analogy. You're neither a co-worker nor a boss.

quote:

---

Your #5 - have you never heard of identity theft?

---

I didn't say misuse was impossible. I said the chance is too slim to matter.

quote:

---

In addition, think of all the cases of mistaken identities that have happened with people being targeted because of homeland security and put on watch lists simply because of their names. The government isn't perfect, far from it, and the lessening of private rights under the Patriot Act should be disturbing to anyone, no matter if they are a US citizen or a visitor to our country. If something like this were put into place in another country, and US citizens were subjected to it, you can be sure there would be an outcry about it.

---

First, you've just given reason that supports my position that racial profiling wouldn't work. It's strange that some people oppose minor measures like photographic records of alien visitors yet they support racial profiling. The chance for misuse of racial profiling is far greater than the chance for misuse of photographic records. Secondly, photographing and fingerprinting non-citizens is not detrimental to civil liberties.

quote:

---

I reread this thread, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, but almost all of your posts, Metahuman, have been condescending to some degree or another. Responding to Ramasax or not, you have come across as an arrogant jackass that likes to speak down to others, and even if your information is correct (what info you will deign to share with others that is) you give the impression that others should be grateful for your participation in the thread.

---

Then I guess I'm an arrogant jackass prick... according to you at least. Sue me. I have an eerie feeling that the reason people typically get upset with my opinions is that I use words like "ignorant" and they attribute some subjective meaning to those terms. I should have a disclaimer in my signature that says something to the degree of, "All of my opinions use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of their actual meaning." Thus, my opinions are devoid of emotion.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-15-2004 00:14)

2 things -

1) the problem here obviously lies in intent.

Most of us come here for discussion.

Apparently MH comes here for "competition".

the two are not compatible in this format.

2) citing a source does not make what you say factual. period.

the fact that we have not read the same book you did does not make us less educated than you, or less able to have a discussion about topics on which that book offers a point of view.

No - you won't find anyone here ready to bow to your self-supposed intellectual grandeur.

Until you can come to terms with this two things, metahuman, 'discussion' with is simply not possible.

The futility of trying to discuss the points in your last post addressing me is quite evident, so I will respectfully decline to continue in this manner.

Should you feel like having a civil discussion at some point, I'll be more than happy...

DL-44: Apparently you have problems differentiating assumption and fact. Most of your perceptions of me are assumptions, not fact.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

1) the problem here obviously lies in intent. Most of us come here for discussion. Apparently MH comes here for "competition".

---

This is a debate, not a discussion. Competition is an inherent byproduct of debate. Since you're incapable of proving that racial profiling is effective, you've turned to claims of irrelevance and dirty campaigning.

quote:

---

2) citing a source does not make what you say factual. period.

---

I don't recall anyone claiming that. Source citations certainly make an opinion far more credible than unsubstantiated subjective bollocks.

quote:

---

the fact that we have not read the same book you did does not make us less educated than you, or less able to have a discussion about topics on which that book offers a point of view.

---

Incorrect. The fact that you have not read the definitive book in esoteric->exoteric genetic human history does make you less educated than I. That is, you are ignorant of the subject discussed. Moreover, due to your ignorance of the subject discussed you fail to comprehend relevancy and therefore are less capable of producing intelligent discussion.

quote:

---

No - you won't find anyone here ready to bow to your self-supposed intellectual grandeur.

---

I couldn't possibly care less.

quote:

---

Until you can come to terms with this two things, metahuman, 'discussion' with is simply not possible.

---

I don't need to accept your opinion of me in order to participate in discussion. Intelligent conversation with deluded racist fools that are ignorant of the sociological, psychological, and genetic aspects of human nature is not possible anyway.

quote:

---

The futility of trying to discuss the points in your last post addressing me is quite evident, so I will respectfully decline to continue in this manner.

---

Which manner is that? The manner in which you demonstrated your inaccurate understanding of science and your attitude towards science that claims scientific inquiry is equivalent to philosophical waxing? If you decline to continue in that manner, that would be wonderful.

quote:

---

Should you feel like having a civil discussion at some point, I'll be more than happy...

---

Right back at you.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-15-2004 03:40)

Metahuman - We obviously have different ideas surrounding what "discussion" and "ideas" mean. I think we should just leave it at that. Should I someday have the time to read the book you referenced, we can maybe then have a chat about it. And in the future, I would appreciate that you refrain from insinuating that I don't take responsibility for my own education. You have no idea how I spend my day.

Rhyssa - You bring up and interesting point regarding identity theft and the topic at hand. I'm curious as to how you believe that photographs and fingerprints would contribute to identity theft. Both of these provide more solid means of verification than a name and a signature. In the virtual world these methods are useless of course.

The fingerprinting and photographing isn't something that foreign visitors are being subjected to. US citizens are subjected to the same treatment. In the past 6 months I've been fingerprinted no less than 4 times simply because my company has a contract with the government. Everytime a piece of information needed correction on my background check, I was required to initial it, date it and submit another set of fingerprints to go along with the update. I didn't feel violated or like my privacy was being invaded - only annoyed at the fact that I would be cleaning ink off my hands for several days again. I think it's because I don't feel that a more definitive means of identification equates with invasion of my privacy. But, that's just me. Now - if they were asking for DNA samples... that's another story.

Moon Dancer: I'm sorry if you thought I insinuated you don't take responsibility for your education but I only say what I mean (I don't insinuate) and what I said was that educating yourself is your responsibility, which you seem to agree is true.

I think archiving DNA samples would prove to be a much more interesting issue. Still, I would disagree that it would be an invasion of non-physical privacy as having your DNA on file would bring about all sorts of new technology that make life easier. The benefits of DNA archivance outweigh the threats.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

quote:Citing sources really means nothing, not when people ask you for clarification.

Again, incorrect. Clarification would require copying the text into digital format and violating copyright laws. It's easier to RTFM.

---

just a quick fyi here -

several months ago this issue was before the congress and the american librarians turned out en masse to object. quoting is still legal as long as the source is noted and it is legal to copy/photocopy some (not every page) of a book including maps and diagrams. again, as long as the source is noted.

Metahuman, hi, how's it going?

Without a doubt you have an interesting 'debate' technique, mostly revolving round telling people they are ignorant, and claiming unfailingly that your sources are superior to theirs. I don't want to post in this forum and attack anyone, but you sound like you need it a little... maybe a lot!

Now to start with, whilst holding DNA details on members of a society are certainly going to break technilogical barriers and increase security, such measures are surely going to make a society cave in. I'm certainly not pro-crime at any level, but if the government knows where everyones going and what they're up to people will be scared to live their lives the way they want to. independance will go out the window, it really is a Big Brother scenario, we'll no longer have the freedom to release our stress and anxiety in ways we see fit, we'll be practically living like robots, except Human beings don't do too well living in captivity.

Because ultimatley that's where it could go, maximum security, living in a prison.

I've seen Escape from New york don't ya know!

I'd like to congratulate RhyssaFireheart on a good post up there, it summed up a lot that's been going on in this forum as of late, and also I would have to say that for once I totally agree with DL-44. Metahuman, you have come here for debate, but we're here for discussion...

quote:

---

All things OZONE. Miscellaneous chit-chat about all sorts of silly topics. A good place to start.

---

That's what is says on the door mate, don't let it hit you on the way out.

There's no point insulting everyone in the 'debate' just to prove your point right, if people are the sum of their posts, then you're one Arrogant, Ignorant wan&er!

Cheers,

Blaise.

(Edited by Blaise on 10-15-2004 12:04)

One point only: this is a discussion. Any 'debate' or sense of competition you bring to it is outside the scope of such a discussion.

MH: You don't spend much time in airports do you? I can tell you that I do; I'm in an aiport at least once a week, most likely twice a week. There absolutely has to be profiling during the security screening process. Notice I didn't say racial profiling because race isn't the only thing to consider. However, it is definitely among the factors to take into consideration.

Whether you believe it or not, race is most definitely a predictor of the likelihood that someone will commit a terrorist act.

:::11oh1:::

Not that he needs agreement to be right, but I agree with metahuman on this one: just wonder why they aren't doing it with *all* visitors since Al Qeada would use anyone of any race to get to us.

~allewyn

Woo Hoo! Velvetrose said "underwear"... snicker...

and then all those words from everybody else... Jeez, you people can blather on.


I dont know about fingerprinting EVRYONE that comes into the U.S., Thats a lotta ink and tissue, or do they use those bank inkpads that have special wipe away ink? Lights?

I did gather that some people are concerned about racism... tsk, tsk, tsk, I didnt read anyone advocating unequal treatment, like seperate sections of the airport, plane or restrooms. So was the race card thrown out there to muddy the waters of sanity?

If mostly green people hated America and wanted to destroy them, wouldnt it be wise to take an extra look at the green people entering?

Ok not green, but how about people dressed as pirates, if there was a cult of 22 million people who dressed as pirates and professed to loathe America and all it stands for, and was known to have carried out some shenanigans on american soil; Could we then profile pirate looking people entering the U.S.?

And if not, why not?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:
I didnt read anyone advocating unequal treatment,

---

Read the messages of Ramasax again.

Profiling only pirate looking people would be insulting to honest pirate looking people, would miss all not pirate looking people who want to hurt America in the name of pirate looking people. Sure it could have a little immediate benefit for Americans, but certainly at the cost of more harm later and of a discrimination towards all pirate looking people. Thus profile pirate looking people would be racist, and naive in the sense that it would try to cure a symptom without trying to look at the roots the Americano-Pirate ( or Pirato-American if you're a Pirate yourself ) problem.

quote:

---

would miss all not pirate looking people

---

Again we a gross misunderstanding of 'profiling'.

*OBVIOUSLY* you can't look soley at the 'pirate looking people'.

But if you've identified one aspect of a person who is likely to be a threat, it's just plain stupid not to address it.

Not just pirate looking people, just proportionally more pirate looking people. And..., any grandma's carrying pirate equipment of course.

Sure, the pirate looking people could find people who dont look like pirates to carry out their dastardly deeds. But, it is somewhat unlikely that grandma looking people would be willing to sacrifice their life for the pirate looking people. And, because the pirate looking people who want to hurt America, are somewhat fanatical, they tend not to trust grandma looking people and want the glory of martyrdom for themselves.

I am not saying ALL pirate looking people are fanatical, just the ones who strap explosives to themselves.

It is with pride that the less informed pirate looking people step up for the job of martyr. We dont see the pirate looking people leaders, or the other pirate looking people for that matter, volunteering to be a martyr. It takes a certain type of pirate looking person to strap explosives to themselves and explode their body parts in the name of the pirate looking peoples god. I'm sure the incentives to the family left behind helps. But it is more a matter of ignorance and proud martyrdom that is at work here. It HAS to be a pirate looking person that does the deed. Otherwise their is no glory.

Pffft, imagine the shame visited upon the pirate looking people cell that used girl scout looking people to do their glory work.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 10-24-2004 00:31)

quote:

---

Blaise said: Without a doubt you have an interesting 'debate' technique, mostly revolving round telling people they are ignorant, and claiming unfailingly that your sources are superior to theirs.

---

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816. (Pretty good source, eh?)

The term "ignorance" merely means "the lack of knowledge or education." Describing someone as "ignorant" is ambiguous and leaves that which they are ignorant of to interpretation. I attach no other meaning to the term in addition to its optimally objective definition.

A common misconception of profiling is that it can be used effectively to target people based on appearance. With profiling, the only effective targeting method is all or nothing and that's not saying much.

quote:

---

krets said: Whether you believe it or not, race is most definitely a predictor of the likelihood that someone will commit a terrorist act.

---

That's simply not true. Criminalization is a societal process. If a society discriminates people based on appearance, then people of that appearance will assume behaviors appropriate for adaptation to that discrimination. Terrorism can neither be accurately measured nor prevented by discrimination based on the color of skin.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!