On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Matthew Carpenter wrote: > On Tuesday 27 September 2005 09:54, Roger Oberholtzer wrote: > > Why the fuss over this and not over fingerprints? Once a record of a > > physical trait to be used in tracking was allowed, is there any surprise > > that as the traits to record get more accurate they too would be > > recorded? > > > > <rant> > > > > I would like to hear more complaints about the nifty little fingerprint > > scanners at U.S. immigrations that scan/compare/record fingerprints for > > all non-U.S. passengers entering the U.S. Oh, that's right. I forgot. > > Civil rights in the U.S. only applies to some portion of the U.S. > > population, and no one else. > > > > </rant> > > > > Oh, I don't know. I don't see a problem with that. Civil liberties and > "Inalienable Human Rights" are significantly different. Those checks are to > protect the citizens of this country. If you don't like it: > > a) don't visit the US > b) become a citizen of the US > > It's not like it's a huge imposition. And the cost/benefit ratio is good.
Based on what data? We weren't imposing those requirements for over 200 years prior to 9/11/01, and there were no attacks. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
