Subject:
|
Re: Are you being secured? (or ...TSA? no: TIA! )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:28:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
281 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > The Transportation Security Adminstration may be misnamed... there's an "in"
> > missing, as in "INsecurity"
> >
> > http://tzaddik.us/lilpoh/archives/000789.html
> > http://reason.com/0308/fe.bd.suspected.shtml
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy200401070913.asp
> > http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/003874.shtml#003874
> >
> > and there's a great article in the Feb issue of Reason as well.
>
> Well, it looks like I might have to get fingerprinted when I arrive for BF PDX,
> and I don't like that one bit! Not sure yet - they're still debating whether
> countries that have visa exemptions (incl Aus for stays less than 90 days) will
> also be exempt from such "security measures". And Australia has also decided to
> go the same way as the US and have a digital photo on a chip in passports from
> October. I don't see how thats any more secure than a paper photo, but oh well.
>
> ROSCO
the problem with all biometric ID is that the ID you would need to 'prove' your
identity can easily be faked, e.g. birth certificate, driving license, etc. What
a biometric ID would prevent would be dual IDs (vocabularyroviding the database
worked. But if you were a suicide bomber, visiting the US for the first time,
would you worry that you couldn't then get another ID; in your real name for
example.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
