Great. When renewing my passport from 2009 on, I have to provide 2 fingerprints. Like a criminal.

The sad thing: Some study showed that 73% of all Austrians "agree with the plan to use biometric criteria to increase security with identification". I'm sure they didn't even know what "biometric criteria" means.

Thanks, EU. And thanks for the mandatory spying of IP addresses for all internet providers. No wonder so many people are sceptical towards the European Union.

---

Why snark works.

I wouldn't worry too much. As far as I understand it we're having finger printing, bio metric/iris scanning implemented as well as all new passports requiring a face to face interview with the officials themselves.

I also note your passport is a mere 69 euros, the UK one checks in at around ?80! If you want to see excessive curtailment of civil liberties, come to the UK. Personally, it doesn't bother me.

Unless they're keeping records on your political and intellectual preferences i'd say the implications for "police state" style controls are overstated by liberalist scare mongers. I even sometimes consider supporting the mandatory DNA profiling of all people at birth which has been mooted.

The point is: A problem with an ID number or document can be fixed. A problem with your biometrical data can't. You can't change your fingerprint. You can't change your DNA. You're stuck with it and everything anybody ever decides to do with it for the rest of your life.

Of course, most of us won't ever be affected by this. But if this isn't a step towards a police state, I don't know what is.

---

Why snark works.

What kind of problem could you possibly have with a fingerprint? In fact, what could be wrong with an ID number? Unless youre an actual criminal theres no problem as far as I see.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

?He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.? Revelation 13:16-17

That's where it's heading.

---

i eat paint

The more personal data is wired together, the more our life becomes a glasshouse, the more power the government (and whoever controls it) has over its people. It's one step. Far in the wrong direction IMO.

The argument is that, with fingerprints in addition to photographs, there will be less risks of fake IDs. They even want to store all fingerprints in a central EU database.

But even that system is not 100% secure. So, with exactly the same arguments, they could add DNA samples, GPS tracking or any other personal data to ID cards and passports. And that isn't even science fiction. We have a new law that allows the police to locate anyone by mobile phone signals, without a warrant.

I don't really see how some of you can be so indifferent towards measures like this. :sad:

---

Why snark works.

When they start implanting devices in people's brains and injecting nanites into people's bodies, then it will be the time to be truly worried.

---

Anyone who is pregnant, has been pregnant, could ever become pregnant, or who could ever impregnate others should not read this.
I told you not to read that.

Deus Ex ftw! :biggrin:

---

Why snark works.

I want nanites, the kind that repair muscle and bone and make you superhuman, that is...

---

o

Even if someone can program them to "shut you down" if they don't like you or what you've been doing?

---

Anyone who is pregnant, has been pregnant, could ever become pregnant, or who could ever impregnate others should not read this.
I told you not to read that.

[size=13][quote=reaper47]When renewing my passport from 2009 on, I have to provide 2 fingerprints. Like a criminal.[/quote]

Huh? Like a criminal? If you get arrested, then you SHOULD feel like a criminal. Otherwise, who the hell cares.

fishy said:
[/size]<span style="color: silver;">Revelation 13:16-17[size=13]

<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">Since when is GIVING your fingerrpint RECEIVING a mark... :-/ [/size]</span>[quote=reaper27]You can't change your fingerprint<span style="color: silver;">[/quote]
Gattaca, Men in Black, anyone? Anyone?

</span>[quote=Gwil]your passport is a mere 69 euros, the UK one checks in at around ?80<span style="color: silver;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">[/quote]
US passports cost about $100 USD (~65 Euros) and take 6 to 8 weeks unless you pay another 60 USD (~40 Euros) to have it expedited in about 5 business days.

Anyway, government use of fingerprinting has been around since the 14th century. Asking for your fingerprint lies somewhere between requiring a signature and having a photograph of you no older than 10 years in the way of stepping towards POLICE STATE. This isn't "1984", people.</span></span>

Wow, that was three days of inactivity on the General Banter forum before Dark Tree finally made a post. I hate to change the topic but is anybody else a little concerned? This is a warning, I will make another desktop pictures thread :razz:

---

Aaron's Stuff

Its not about current governments.

The problem is what if one day in the distant future your country becomes authoritarian, it seems unlikely but it can happen, and that government will have a detailed record of all citizens biometric data for its unscroupulous use, courtesy of the kind, previous democratic government.

I think this stuff, and the ubiquitous CCTV cameras is largely accepted by the British because they've never had to endure anything like the Stasi, but I am shocked the Austrians wear it so readily.

---

"Lovers of the law and good sausage should never watch either of them being made."

• Otto von Bismarck

Yes, few in fact know that putting fingerprints on passports is how Hitler came into power, how the Soviets kept control of their population, and even now every North Korean passport contains a set of prints.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

Being a History undergrad focused on modern History and then beginning an MA into French Decolonisation next year, I'm more than aware of the precedent extra security can set for a government that can abuse it. However, i'm still perfectly satisfied that an Orwellian state is far from possible, especially in Britain.

Gwil said:
an Orwellian state is far from possible, especially in Britain.

don't give up yet Gwil, we still have faith in you.

---

i eat paint

The world in 1984 was only the way it was because the oppressive government could read minds and made thoughts of dissent pretty much a capitol offense.

---

o

? quoting reaper27You can't change your fingerprint[size="2"]
Gattaca, Men in Black, anyone? Anyone?

Se7en?

I can't believe how readily some of you bend over and take large objects inside your asses without a complaint... Why on earth should a government have so goddamn much information about single individuals? Can you give me a single reason that isn't connected with so called "security" or "safety"? Do you really want to live inside a box that's constantly monitored by people who you really don't even know?
My country used to be relatively free until we joined European Union, since then there's been a s**tload of new laws and regulations that affect everything from the production of food stuffs to modifying automobiles and not in a good way for that matter... Complicating matters does not equal making things better. I understand that there's a lot of pressure for politicians to appear as if they're actually doing something, but I hope that at one point their realize that there's a number of things they can do that actually have some beneficial results...

And as for saying that things are done to prevent terrorism... There are only a couple of countries really affected by terrorism and if you ask me they brought it upon themselves. If you go and kick a hornets nest you're bound to get stung at some point. Then a lot of countries that aren't really connected to the whole terrorism sillyness have to bend over because a couple of big countries happen to have been kicking those hornets nests(Spain, UK and the rest who went to Iraq for the kicks).

I don't see how increasing control and
monitoring can benefit anyone else except that elitist group of people
within the governments of nations...

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires

Gattaca, Men in Black, anyone? Anyone?

Fictional sci-fi movies about over-powered, oppressive organizations, anyone?

---

Why snark works.

You realise of course that Spain and the UK are more than used to tough anti-terror stances as we've lived with terrorism for ooh, most of the 20th century.

Well, we lived with the worst regime in history for a large part of the 20th century. Beats terrorism by a lenght, whithout belitteling its horror.

You can do so much with the stockpiles of data that is collected today. If it only gets into the wrong hands once, there is no way to undo it.

It's a bit like environmental protection. Of course, you won't die tomorrow if someone builds a chemistry factory next to your house... but maybe you get leukaemia at the age of 45 as a result, which isn't fun at all. And if that doesn't happen, it, together with millions of other factories, might cause a climate change that will destroy crops in the year 2070 and cause a massive war for food.

If you ask me, "what is the direct danger of this to you, right now", I couldn't answer. But it's pretty obvious that, compared to the little anti-terror oportunities, this is a hugely invasive raid into our privacy, and probably a gateway measure to much worse forms of control.

---

Why snark works.

I was addressing more Pvt Scythes conceptions of terrorism which seem to match that of the Americans, ie that ongoing terrorism is a new concept which came in under "al-Qaeda".

It is quite obvious that fingerprinting/DNA collection is open to abuse, and it only needs to be abused by one faction on one occasion to make the arguments against it valid. However, I just can't see that happening. Liberal democracies are just too far advanced and entrenched in the modern world that a return or embracement of totalitarian police states is an exotic oft-wished dream of those obsessed with global conspiracies and cynicism.

Sorry, I support DNA profiling, fingerprinting as tools of the state, just as I support more strict policing overall. I am 110% confident that the machinery of surveillance can not and will not be abused. If there were any situation where extremist parties gained power in Western Europe it would seem likely society would be in an anarchic state already, lessening the ability of any government to play Big Brother to its proles.

Gwil said:
I was addressing more Pvt Scythes conceptions of terrorism which seem to match that of the Americans, ie that ongoing terrorism is a new concept which came in under "al-Qaeda".

pfft, the IRA and the ETA are freedom fighters, what are you talking about :rolleyes:

But hey now, we Americans effectively dealt with our domestic terrorists over a hundred years ago instead of letting them linger on like our European counterparts. Maybe there wouldn't be ongoing terrorism if you just put some effort into it! :razz:

I've often advocated reinvading Ireland and kicking some Catholic ass but it doesn't seem to go down too well with Irish people, or well, anybody generally.

Maybe we should just go kick in the Frenchs teeth again, they're always supporting liberal freedom fighter style groups.

just found this...
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/21/uk-planning-to-monitor-and-record-every-phone-call-web-page-an/

good luck...

---

Reality has become a commodity.

Even more ridiculous when compared to this recent scandal:

http://news.cnet.com/U.K.-governments-lost-data-worth-billions-to-criminals/2100-1029_3-6220725.html

I wish I had your confidence in government officials, Gwil.

---

Why snark works.

First story, in draft - unlikely to pass. All the recent extra security measures have struggled greatly in the face of Parliament/Lords, and I don't see that as any exception. Incidentally, the Government has used wire taps in cases involving the IRA and "al-Qaeda" already, I can't remember whether they were admissable as evidence.

No offence guys, but I think you're both being extremely naive in assuming that our Government (or any government democratically elected or otherwise) plays by the rules, especially in issues regarding national security. If the intelligence services need to obtain information and can likely achieve that in an underhand and undetectable method, I am certain they will do or have done so already. Thinking that a government will stop engaging in certain activities because it hasn't quite made the statute is an admirable confidence in your politicians which I wish I could share, but experience of terrorism, the cold war and other issues would suggest strongly to me the Government here and elsewhere is not the honourable force we would be led to believe is operating by code of law and glossy manifestos.

As for the second link, reaper - it's nothing to do with "Government surveillance". The details lost on those CDs are fairly routine (and in actuality the dangers of being abused were massively blown out of proportion, because well, it made a good story). If anything, the issues exposed by that clanger were more representing how INSECURE the government is, a sharp contrast to any Orwellian state which would never let such a catastrophe happen. The procedures in place for movement of data were inadequate, and using junior officials with poor understanding of encryption and data security was shown to be a mistake.

If anything, as I said before, the data loss scandal demonstrates to me that any advance toward surveillance states would be heavily scuppered by the inefficiencies and mismanagement of heavily layered bureacracy.

Just the other day, there was a report by the Police Federation which indicated that CCTV (we're "the most watched nation on earth") had helped solve less than 5% of crimes, and monitors were often not observed and tapes were recorded over continually*, making their use as gatherers of evidence or sinister eyes of the state seem greatly exaggerated.

*Take up of digital sources by CCTV operators was also low - making images either inaccessible due to overwriting, or of too poor a quality to be of any use to anybody.

Hmm, I'm not sure if I like being called "naive" in this case, especially.

I'm sure you have spent more time analysing politics and history than me, Gwil, already having jumped further in your assumptions so you are critical towards what might seem almost like the "mainstream" view today, that surveillance is evil, etc.

But, tbh, I do think that in this case, it is that simple. Everything bad in history started slowly and seemingly harmless. And I don't even want to stress the "history is repeating" cliche. The outcomes, in this case, will likely be completely different since the speed of which data flows has increased so dramatically.

Anyway, I think that, although it might not be a realistic scenario, it's healthy to be sceptical in this case, to support a group of people who think that there might be a danger. Do I think that it's likely for Europe to develop another totalitarian state within my lifetime? No. Fortunately, I feel like this is very unlikely.

But, let's say the likelyhood is 1%. That's picking a number between 1 and 100 and chose the same as me. If you picked 65, you got your totalitarian regime. I think it's far from impossible that this new abuse of technology backfires. Like free, clean energy turned into Tschernobyl. I understand your position Gwil, it might be more sound, statistically, but I'm not ashamed for sticking to the shouting masses here.

---

Why snark works.

<span style="color: white;">The thing is that if data is stored somewhere, even for relatively short periods of time, it is still there. And if it's there then there's always some way to get access to it. I'm not only talking about the CCTV here.

<span style="color: limegreen; font-weight: bold;"> Let's just say that government X makes a database of all its citizens fingerprints. Then there's a criminal faction Y that does break in gigs for various houses. Faction Y finds out that rich person Z has fingerprint locks on his computer, safe and even in some of the doors in his house. So what faction Y does is that it hacks to a government database, steals Zs fingerprint information and produces latex copies of Zs fingerprints(some fingerprint readers can be fooled even with a right sized print of a fingerprint). After that faction Y can go and loot Zs house at ease.</span><br style="color: white; font-weight: bold;">This is a completely sound scenario as no matter what kind of system is in question "there's always a way in".

And I'm aware that UK has had its terrorist problems in the past(as well as Spain). There were some problems in far east a couple of hundred years ago when British Imperium was at its pinnacle with some muslim terrorists, if I remember correctly. Yet what I said before about the hornets nest applies here as well. You did go and invade that country in the first place and if I remember right you did invade Ireland as well(from what I've gathered IRA has since stopped with the bombings, I'm not aware of the situation with Basque separatists in Spain though). So no I don't live in some laa-laa-land where terrorism didn't exist before 9/11, I simply focus on more current events, because that's what's affecting the situation currently.
</span>

---

''Everyone wades in s**t until they're competent enough to walk on it. Jesus style.''
Dystopia - Empires