Hard to consider the ROI with no real numbers yet to base the judgement on. All we know for sure about the program and it's potential success/failure: finger printing is a long proven and successful method for matching people; criminals are entering the US without any real method for tracking them; the US needs a way to track/follow up visiters to the country; especially those with a habit of vanishing into the populace.
If even one terrorist is captured or even prevented from entering the US and lives saved, then the ROI becomes a pretty good ratio, unless you want to start playing actuarial for the insurance companies and determine exactly how many lives should be sacrificed for the sake of maximising the ROI.
criminals are entering the US without any real method for tracking them; the US needs a way to track/follow up visiters to the country; especially those with a habit of vanishing into the populace.
If we knew they were criminals we would catch them in the first place. All I'm saying is this isn't a good deterrent for terrorism.
Don't look at the ROI in a bubble for just this program. Using your logic ANY method used would have to be supported because ultimately just about ANY method would catch someone. With the money and energy going into this program, there are better things the government could do. Compare the ROI on the dollars going into fingerprinting vs. those same dollars going into a more effective program. I think we'd find that there are better ways of dealing with terrorism.
It's not the terrorists I worry about so much as an out of control government. Sure they might catch a few terrorists, but what about the people they'll label as terrorists just to disparage and harrass? If you look back at American history there's always been some kind of label that was used to brandish people and take away their rights. Anarchists - union activists - communists - the war on drugs - the war on terror..................
Breaking News: Effective immediately, all foreign travellers entering the United States will be rocked in the butt by Randy "The Macho Man" Savage or a close approximation. Ooooooh yeaaaah!
When it comes to people dedicated to spectacularly kill a large amount of people, and often themselves in the process, prevention is a more advised course of action that deterrence.
The United States obviously considers terrorism more of a threat than does Brazil, and so it attempts to prevent it with various methods, notably fingerprinting foreign visitors (I won't discuss fingerprinting's effectiveness as it is of no importance to the point I'm trying to make).
Some countries' passport holders may be spared such slight (but perhaps necessary) unpleasantness if they participate in an agreed arrangement (visa waiver scheme), others may not. That's legitimate.
If Brazil wished to spare the procedure for its passport holders, the constructive way would have been to try entering some kind of similar arrangement with the US. While Brazil's chosen course seems to be vindictive more than anything else, it's just as legitimate.
Perhaps Brazil considers acceptable the prospect of less visitors from the US as a result, but that is Brazil's prerogative.
Brazil is just being stupid. If they object that is all fine and good but retaliating is juvenile. If they were doing it for genuine reasons of concern I wouldn't even have a problem with that but it is obviously a retaliatory action.
As far as the US thing, it doesn't particularly bother me. Fingerprints and a picture aren't that big of a deal. You can make that choice if you want to come here. I've had to consent to the same hting to get jobs in public schools as others have as well.
I doubt this system will be very effective in catching terrorists although you'll catch the occasional person wanted for something else. First of all, they aren't even doing this at all ports of entry at least at this point, only at certain big ones. I assume that it will be expanded in the future but I don't know that they are gonna be covering every single official port of entry.
Even then, if a person is fingerprinted and photographed, that tells you information about them that might help you find them but this is a big country in which to hide even if someone is looking for you.
And even if you overstay your visa that doesn't necessarily mean that the FBI is going to be looking for you. Realistically they don't have hte resources to be doing that for everyone who overstays unless there is other intelligence indicating they should be doing so anyway.
Past that, getting past the border without being entered in the system ain't exactly hard either. Drug runners do it all the time and succeed, not always, but the vast majority of the time. Illegal aliens have gotten through by the millions. Just guessing off the top of my head on numbers I'd say that we've got probably about 4000 miles of border with Canada and 2000 miles with Mexico plus 8000 miles of coastline. Our borders tend to funnel everyone into a few places, Tijuana, El Paso, Vancouver, Detroit, etc but in between there are vast stretches of uninhabited land with limited border patrols. There are roads in from Canada that are ports of entry which are only manned from 9-5 and have traffic cones or gates as the sole barrier for someone crossing when they are closed. There are trails over public lands which can be crossed in a day or two. There are all sorts of way in without being checked in for someone who wants as much and chances are pretty good that they'll get in especially coming from Canada. Geography and budget constraints force that to be the case even with the help they can get now for technology.
Until there is an international law that says states cannot do this sort of thing, then both the US and Brasil have the "right" to put this kind of practice into effect. The more relevant question is, what is the basis for determining which country's citizens belong on the "waive list". If "terrorist activity" or "likely terrorist hosts" in a given state is the measure, then I think just about every nation on earth should be waived other than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Palestine and maybe Syria and Iran.
But even then, it's just as likely there are bombers lying in wait in Spain or France as there are in the above-mentioned countries. Why put them on the waive list, just because they're "European"?
I think the point is, the US is being stupid about how it's choosing the waive list.
Until there is an international law that says states cannot do this sort of thing, then both the US and Brasil have the "right" to put this kind of practice into effect. The more relevant question is, what is the basis for determining which country's citizens belong on the "waive list". If "terrorist activity" or "likely terrorist hosts" in a given state is the measure, then I think just about every nation on earth should be waived other than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Palestine and maybe Syria and Iran.
But even then, it's just as likely there are bombers lying in wait in Spain or France as there are in the above-mentioned countries. Why put them on the waive list, just because they're "European"?
I think the point is, the US is being stupid about how it's choosing the waive list.
Not at all. Start with obvious candidates and work your way down from there. My personal feeling is that none should be excluded.
Not at all. Start with obvious candidates and work your way down from there. My personal feeling is that none should be excluded.
While arrangments, according to which relevent data (fingerprints, dental records, and whatnot) is being made available by the country of residence upon request, might be helpful, the ?better cautious than exploded? approach does have a few advantages indeed.
[As is the case with the routine mandatory checking of all people entering places of commerce, entertainment, or central public transit stations, in areas which are particularly terror-prone.]
brazil is not discriminating ANZONE with their fingerprints policz.
thez reqire fingerprints from ANZONE, BRAYILIANS and NON-BRAYILIANS. period.
mz last identitz card is brayilian, and it has fingerprints.
i hate both, fngerprinting AND id cards.
also portugal requires finger prints in the national id cards. no portuguese have protested. (and obviouslz no americans have NEVER needed to get an ID card or in brayil nor in portugal as this topic has not raised before).
I think fingerprinting and photographing are great ideas. After 9/11, we need to know who's in our country. Anyone who doesn't like it - tough!
finger prints do nothing, reallz. i have mz finger prints in mz brayilian ID card. ive been checked the photo a yillion times, but no one has ever checked mz finger prints .. whether thez correspond to mu fingers.
brayil and portugal have both used the figner prints on ALL id cards for a long time, from far before the 9/11 thing.
i personallz find it OK and NOT DISCRIMINATING ... BUT ONLZ when the finger prints are taken of EVERZONE. SO NO MATTER IF ZOU ARE FROM THE COUNTRZ OR A VISITOR / (IL)LEGAL ALIEN, everzone.
otherwise .. discriminating.
ps- sorrz for all the tzpos todaz - im on a german kezboard.
brazil is not discriminating ANZONE with their fingerprints policz.
thez reqire fingerprints from ANZONE, BRAYILIANS and NON-BRAYILIANS. period.
mz last identitz card is brayilian, and it has fingerprints.
i hate both, fngerprinting AND id cards.
also portugal requires finger prints in the national id cards. no portuguese have protested. (and obviouslz no americans have NEVER needed to get an ID card or in brayil nor in portugal as this topic has not raised before).
My parents a while back had to get Portuguese ID cards to open up a bank account in Lisbon. They have double citizenship but still had to get these cards.
outisider, even if they were just portugues / just americans, they would still have needed to get those cards.
i dont have any ID card in europe. i don't want one. i use my drivers licence or passport, only those. but in brazil that wasnt enough. i was forced to get a brazilian id card.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
What prints were left on the planes that crashed into the Pentagon?
You do know that some of those criminals were illegals? Had they been quickly tracked by their prints as such..
Originally posted by bunge
Consider the ROI. Nearly zero I would imagine.
Hard to consider the ROI with no real numbers yet to base the judgement on. All we know for sure about the program and it's potential success/failure: finger printing is a long proven and successful method for matching people; criminals are entering the US without any real method for tracking them; the US needs a way to track/follow up visiters to the country; especially those with a habit of vanishing into the populace.
If even one terrorist is captured or even prevented from entering the US and lives saved, then the ROI becomes a pretty good ratio, unless you want to start playing actuarial for the insurance companies and determine exactly how many lives should be sacrificed for the sake of maximising the ROI.
Originally posted by Tulkas
criminals are entering the US without any real method for tracking them; the US needs a way to track/follow up visiters to the country; especially those with a habit of vanishing into the populace.
If we knew they were criminals we would catch them in the first place. All I'm saying is this isn't a good deterrent for terrorism.
Don't look at the ROI in a bubble for just this program. Using your logic ANY method used would have to be supported because ultimately just about ANY method would catch someone. With the money and energy going into this program, there are better things the government could do. Compare the ROI on the dollars going into fingerprinting vs. those same dollars going into a more effective program. I think we'd find that there are better ways of dealing with terrorism.
The United States obviously considers terrorism more of a threat than does Brazil, and so it attempts to prevent it with various methods, notably fingerprinting foreign visitors (I won't discuss fingerprinting's effectiveness as it is of no importance to the point I'm trying to make).
Some countries' passport holders may be spared such slight (but perhaps necessary) unpleasantness if they participate in an agreed arrangement (visa waiver scheme), others may not. That's legitimate.
If Brazil wished to spare the procedure for its passport holders, the constructive way would have been to try entering some kind of similar arrangement with the US. While Brazil's chosen course seems to be vindictive more than anything else, it's just as legitimate.
Perhaps Brazil considers acceptable the prospect of less visitors from the US as a result, but that is Brazil's prerogative.
As far as the US thing, it doesn't particularly bother me. Fingerprints and a picture aren't that big of a deal. You can make that choice if you want to come here. I've had to consent to the same hting to get jobs in public schools as others have as well.
I doubt this system will be very effective in catching terrorists although you'll catch the occasional person wanted for something else. First of all, they aren't even doing this at all ports of entry at least at this point, only at certain big ones. I assume that it will be expanded in the future but I don't know that they are gonna be covering every single official port of entry.
Even then, if a person is fingerprinted and photographed, that tells you information about them that might help you find them but this is a big country in which to hide even if someone is looking for you.
And even if you overstay your visa that doesn't necessarily mean that the FBI is going to be looking for you. Realistically they don't have hte resources to be doing that for everyone who overstays unless there is other intelligence indicating they should be doing so anyway.
Past that, getting past the border without being entered in the system ain't exactly hard either. Drug runners do it all the time and succeed, not always, but the vast majority of the time. Illegal aliens have gotten through by the millions. Just guessing off the top of my head on numbers I'd say that we've got probably about 4000 miles of border with Canada and 2000 miles with Mexico plus 8000 miles of coastline. Our borders tend to funnel everyone into a few places, Tijuana, El Paso, Vancouver, Detroit, etc but in between there are vast stretches of uninhabited land with limited border patrols. There are roads in from Canada that are ports of entry which are only manned from 9-5 and have traffic cones or gates as the sole barrier for someone crossing when they are closed. There are trails over public lands which can be crossed in a day or two. There are all sorts of way in without being checked in for someone who wants as much and chances are pretty good that they'll get in especially coming from Canada. Geography and budget constraints force that to be the case even with the help they can get now for technology.
But even then, it's just as likely there are bombers lying in wait in Spain or France as there are in the above-mentioned countries. Why put them on the waive list, just because they're "European"?
I think the point is, the US is being stupid about how it's choosing the waive list.
Originally posted by Moogs
Until there is an international law that says states cannot do this sort of thing, then both the US and Brasil have the "right" to put this kind of practice into effect. The more relevant question is, what is the basis for determining which country's citizens belong on the "waive list". If "terrorist activity" or "likely terrorist hosts" in a given state is the measure, then I think just about every nation on earth should be waived other than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Palestine and maybe Syria and Iran.
But even then, it's just as likely there are bombers lying in wait in Spain or France as there are in the above-mentioned countries. Why put them on the waive list, just because they're "European"?
I think the point is, the US is being stupid about how it's choosing the waive list.
Not at all. Start with obvious candidates and work your way down from there. My personal feeling is that none should be excluded.
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Not at all. Start with obvious candidates and work your way down from there. My personal feeling is that none should be excluded.
While arrangments, according to which relevent data (fingerprints, dental records, and whatnot) is being made available by the country of residence upon request, might be helpful, the ?better cautious than exploded? approach does have a few advantages indeed.
[As is the case with the routine mandatory checking of all people entering places of commerce, entertainment, or central public transit stations, in areas which are particularly terror-prone.]
thez reqire fingerprints from ANZONE, BRAYILIANS and NON-BRAYILIANS. period.
mz last identitz card is brayilian, and it has fingerprints.
i hate both, fngerprinting AND id cards.
also portugal requires finger prints in the national id cards. no portuguese have protested. (and obviouslz no americans have NEVER needed to get an ID card or in brayil nor in portugal as this topic has not raised before).
Originally posted by Carol A
I think fingerprinting and photographing are great ideas. After 9/11, we need to know who's in our country. Anyone who doesn't like it - tough!
finger prints do nothing, reallz. i have mz finger prints in mz brayilian ID card. ive been checked the photo a yillion times, but no one has ever checked mz finger prints .. whether thez correspond to mu fingers.
brayil and portugal have both used the figner prints on ALL id cards for a long time, from far before the 9/11 thing.
i personallz find it OK and NOT DISCRIMINATING ... BUT ONLZ when the finger prints are taken of EVERZONE. SO NO MATTER IF ZOU ARE FROM THE COUNTRZ OR A VISITOR / (IL)LEGAL ALIEN, everzone.
otherwise .. discriminating.
ps- sorrz for all the tzpos todaz - im on a german kezboard.
Originally posted by Giaguara
brazil is not discriminating ANZONE with their fingerprints policz.
thez reqire fingerprints from ANZONE, BRAYILIANS and NON-BRAYILIANS. period.
mz last identitz card is brayilian, and it has fingerprints.
i hate both, fngerprinting AND id cards.
also portugal requires finger prints in the national id cards. no portuguese have protested. (and obviouslz no americans have NEVER needed to get an ID card or in brayil nor in portugal as this topic has not raised before).
My parents a while back had to get Portuguese ID cards to open up a bank account in Lisbon. They have double citizenship but still had to get these cards.
i dont have any ID card in europe. i don't want one. i use my drivers licence or passport, only those. but in brazil that wasnt enough. i was forced to get a brazilian id card.