Thai Immigration To Introduce Fingerprint Scanning At Suvarnabhumi

[chinadarling]

1984 is here...

Scary stuff. I think you spoke the minds of many aware people.

[marquess]

1984 is here...

Scary stuff. I think you spoke the minds of many aware people.

And most people in so called authority, are rubbing their hands with Glee!

[britmaveric]

Not lot you can do anyways - refuse then you aren't admitted to thailand. So in the end it you can whinge but won't change anything.

[Erwin1011]

It is scary to see how many of you dont give a sh** about big brother... it appears all you sheep have been brainwashed from 9/11 and given up cowardly all the liberties so many people died for - well, you just gave them bunch of terrorists a bigger victory they could ever have dreamt of... you sad <lacking printable words>!

I think you need to understnd the difference between what is a right and what is a privelege. International travel is a privelege. Any country may at any time create whatever c riteria for entry they choose. You have the liberty to not go there if that disturbs you.

I think you will have to revisit the declaration of human rights as in the charter of the UN Signed by all membership nations. !

[Erwin1011]

Not lot you can do anyways - refuse then you aren't admitted to thailand. So in the end it you can whinge but won't change anything.

If that attitude had been generally present in 1942, many of us would now be speaking German !

[ddunlop]

In essence I see no problem with this. Fingerprint scanning, as many people have noted here, should only be an issue "if you have something to hide". All this is correct if the information gathered through fingerprint scanning is used as it should be and as it is intended to be.

The problem comes when the information from techniques such as this is misused, for example to label people as 'high risk' because the record of fingerprint scans or some other technology indicate that they have recently visited undesirable countries.

If everything goes as it should then there ought to be no problem. If authorities use the information gathered to draw conclusions, however, then problems arise. Sad but true. We do, as one person noted, live in a 'post 9/11 world' and security is an inevitable part of our world. I would like to know that I can freely provide my fingerprints, DNA from a hair sample, a retinal scan or whatever else is dreamed up in the interest of participating in a program to provide more secure travel for myself and my fellow passengers. I do not, however, trust that this information will necessarily be used only as intended.

Thailand, mind you, is not one of the countries about which I worry most when it comes to misuse of such information.

[lannarebirth]

It is scary to see how many of you dont give a sh** about big brother... it appears all you sheep have been brainwashed from 9/11 and given up cowardly all the liberties so many people died for - well, you just gave them bunch of terrorists a bigger victory they could ever have dreamt of... you sad <lacking printable words>!

I think you need to understnd the difference between what is a right and what is a privelege. International travel is a privelege. Any country may at any time create whatever c riteria for entry they choose. You have the liberty to not go there if that disturbs you.

I think you will have to revisit the declaration of human rights as in the charter of the UN Signed by all membership nations. !

I did, and I see you make my point well:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[miltonbentley]

The 'this sghould only worry you if you have something to hide' response to measures like this are all very well while the governments concerned are essentially benighn. Unfortunately history shows us that governments frequently do not behave in such a way.

For that reason I join others in having reservations. Don't suppose that will make any differenc though.

[Sturbuc]

For arriving flights, the Immigration Bureau has requested that airlines submit a passenger manifest before a plane arrives, again for security and efficiency purposes. Police can scrutinise the data and, therefore, accelerate procedures before passengers even reach immigration booths.

--TNA 2006-09-28

This will make the "no more than 90 days in any 180" a lot easier to implement against those arriving without visas.

Provided the fingerprint scan is a one-off usage to compare to a database of wanted suspects, rather than added to the database for future identification, then I have no problems with it.

However, if it's intended to (in co-operation with the US for example) attempt to build a database of fingerprints of anyone and everyone who travels by air (for some as yet unrevealed "security" purpose) then I'm dead against it - I grew up in an "innocent until proven guilty" society and don't want my fingerprints hanging around in some database ready for a bureaucratic cock-up to identify me as Bin Laden or similar, or for hackers (or "authorised" personnel) to access them for silicone replicating and planting at a crime scene - - - paranoid? When it comes to personal freedoms and personal security - you betcha.

Well, maybe some should be aware that there are many other legal and illegal ways to enter / leave a country. Maybe it's the American way but please be aware that around Christmas 2005 some flights between London and the USA were cancelled because of misinterpretetion of data. And i fear that data is collected and misused

[lannarebirth]

I remember back in the states I had a safety deposit box at the bank. The only security was they asked my mothers maiden name and my signature had to look "similar" to the one the had on file. For decades, that level of security was good enough. Times Change.

10 years ago copy machine companies were putting out color copiers that could reproduce better looking counterfeit currency than anything to that time. Governments around the world scrambled to stay one step ahead of the developing technology.

It's my belief that these new protocals aren't so much to spy on people as it is to keep up with criminals abilities to evade capture, given new technologies. And hey, if it gets me through the airport faster too, that's OK with me.

[nostrel]

this is the thin end of the wedge ,next they will take your DNA just to be sure.

and will they be sharing those prints with other governments in the future ? presumable the Yanks.

but have no fear if you are against having your dabs taken its easy to obscure your fingerprints by various methods so they dont print out clearly.

[animatic]

[

Finger printing is a technique closely identified with a criminal record.

Forcing visitors to this technique is as much as saying: I don't trust the document you present to me for your identification.

I don't trust the visa in it given out by my own embassy or consular services.

In other words it questions the whole international travel agreements currently existing.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying.

Post 9/11 they do not trust the documents.

And they ARE in search of serious criminals,

and it's their country(s), so we have to aquiese or

not come.

I don't lilke it,

but I have done nothing wrong,

and the benifit is :

if I DO have an evil look alike

The finger prints prevent HIM from asuming my identity,

AND more importantly,

prevent ME from EVER being mistaken for him,

by befuddle authorities...

Everything is a trade off,

but if you have done nothing wrong,

you have little to fear... in general.

Edited September 28, 2006 by animatic

[cobra]

Not a bad concept

I still don't understand why there is a need for ANY government to obtain my finger prints when entering their country with a legal document identifying me (passport)

Finger printing is a technique closely identified with a criminal record.

For the simple fact that for a fee, anything is available, including false ID documents,

It's a different world today, some "convenience" must be forfeited for safety,

finger printing is a logically step,

unless you have something to hide, like a past criminal record ...

Hel, if I had my way there would be retina scans too,

[sriracha john]

They should start accepting those European Biometrics passports. I am going to get one next week with wireless chip so they can scan this remotely. I wonder if this ever will come in place.

Imagine, you have your passport and you just walk through the gate. No scan, no picture, everything is stored on the passport. But you know, it reminds me fight with crime - they are always ahead of you. European Passports have pinctures stored, and immigration wants fingerprints. Once passport will have fingerprints stored, then they will ask for another check. Never ending, they always wants more and more.

I will lay you a wager that your new biometric passport will expire before it's readable in Bangkok, ok?

"Scanning fingerprints....accessing databases.... results in seconds.... " yeah right, General... keep dreaming.

[tjo o tjim]

They should start accepting those European Biometrics passports. I am going to get one next week with wireless chip so they can scan this remotely. I wonder if this ever will come in place.

Imagine, you have your passport and you just walk through the gate. No scan, no picture, everything is stored on the passport. But you know, it reminds me fight with crime - they are always ahead of you. European Passports have pinctures stored, and immigration wants fingerprints. Once passport will have fingerprints stored, then they will ask for another check. Never ending, they always wants more and more.

All well and good until someone with a passport reader in the airport queue scans your information (and everybody else) to determine who is going to be away from home for a while. Then, you are ripe for things like identity theft, or burglary.

When things are done wirelessly, without any intervention on your part, you have no way of knowing when your passport is read or by whom. The encryption on the new passports has already been broken.

People use technology to solve problems because it is cool, and easy to charge lots of money for it. It doesn't fix the problem, just adds in a new layer of complexity.

[IMA_FARANG]

Finger Printing what a good idea no problem for me I have done nothing wrong so why should I worry, but people on the wanted list oops

Why should you worry? Because of HUMAN ERROR. I personally know of one person who was in U.S. military and applied to marry a Greek national. She needed a routine police record check from the U.S. authorities. It went through the U.S. embessy in Athens where it was accidentally entered in the U.S. known terrorist watch list. Result was that his prospective bride was flagged as a terrorist when he tried to take her to the U.S. It took about 6 months to get it fixed, even with military help.

That's why you should worry.

[endure]

They should start accepting those European Biometrics passports. I am going to get one next week with wireless chip so they can scan this remotely. I wonder if this ever will come in place.

Imagine, you have your passport and you just walk through the gate. No scan, no picture, everything is stored on the passport.

Yes, just imagine that innocent-looking girl standing near the gate with an RFID reader in her pocket. 30 minutes work and she's got enough data to bang out 100 false passports.

[endure]

What I don't understand is why this equipment wasn't installed before the airport opened? They've had enough time!

[redewenur]

What I don't understand is why this equipment wasn't installed before the airport opened? They've had enough time!

Maybe they couldn't agree on it either

I'd say that, in theory, it's an excellent idea. It sounds as though it won't obstruct passenger flow, and given sufficient computer power and intelligent usage, it offers yet another step in right direction, i.e. enabling passengers to reach their destinations in one piece, and denying air transport to known enemies of peaceful, law-abiding society.

As far as inconvenience goes, it's a small price. I find it inconvenient to double look my front door, but life's like that...

Edited September 28, 2006 by redewenur

[oevna]

1984 is here...

Scary stuff. I think you spoke the minds of many aware people.

People, passports are identification documents. Fingerprints are identifying biometrics. Just because they have been used extensively to identify criminals (because they are effective, and it is important to be able to identify criminals, thus they are used), does not mean that you are being treated as a criminal if you are fingerprinted. In the US and other countries, children are regularly fingerprinted so that they can be identified more easily if they are lost or kidnapped.

If you don't want the government to be able to identify you, why do you own a passport? Or a driver's licence? Or credit cards, for that matter? The answer is because you are voluntarily giving up some privacy in the name of convenience. It's not "1984". You are not going to be fitted with a chip implant in your head next. This is just the next logical step. What good is a passport if it can be easily forged, thus not serving its purpose? Immigration offices might as well not even check passports if their authenticity can't be verified. That's all fingerprinting is. A better form of authentication.

Cheers,

-oevna

[nostrel]

wonder if this apply to ALL arrivals? i cant see that VIPs and diplomats will be too happy about it.

Would they fingerprint Bill Clinton if he arrived ? Or would Sven comply ?

[bkkandrew]

The time will come, when nations will experience continued 9/11 or 7/7 type terrorist attacks, and if the result is mass casualty of innocent human lives, then there will be a public outcry.

The greatest threat to civil liberties today is those above said further attacks.

Terrorism can be stopped, but only by extreme measures. The immediate arrest of all potential terrorists, torture of terrorists into inculpating others. Every one will be surveilled. Convicted terrorists would be punished, along with their kith and kin. All advocasy of terrorism would be criminalised (including peaceful advocasy). Then finally a complete ban on media reporting of terrorism, so terrorists would be denied propaganda.

The above posters who complain of loss of civil liberties, by providing fingerprints into a foreign land have lost touch with reality. Times have changed for ever, it is our duty to mankind to surrender these freedoms, so that future generations can have the chance to live with little terrorism, especially as nuclear and biological terrorism is just a decade away.

I believe that General Macarthy put this situation in the best light... He saw "Reds Under The Bed". I trust you are looking for good old Osama under yours!!

[MyFriend You]

I have no problems with having finger print scans when entering a country however when I transited LAX the other year (flying Auckland to UK) I could not believe I was force to give my finger prints to enter the transit lounge that was literally opposite the aircraft!!! My passport was also stamped showing I had entered the US (also stamped with the wrong date!)!

In the situation I did feel like saying ###### off!

Sorry you didn't like it, I have a suggestion, stick around and see America ouside the airport, or re-route yourself through Karachi, Pakistan, they take your picture and fingerprints, then apply for a visa to your home country with them.(it happened to me, and I'm not even south asian looking...........have a nice day

[sanget]

I have abssolutely no hesitation in letting them take my prints to permit me to enter and leave the country. As a matter of fact, I welcome it and the chance to catch all of the people who come to Thailand to hide. About time that the technology caught up with the bad guys.

[bubba]

1984 is here...

Scary stuff. I think you spoke the minds of many aware people.

People, passports are identification documents. Fingerprints are identifying biometrics.

Exactly. A photograph of your face is also biometric data. Is that "scary stuff" as well?

Has anyone claimed "big brother" when getting a drivers licence because they needed your photograph? A fingerprint scan is simply a digitized photograph of the tip of your finger. I cannot see a huge difference except that a fingerprint scan provides more defnitive identification that a face photograph, which is after all the prinary purporse of a passport.

[biggle]

It's only a nuisance if an when you have something to hide !

most people these days in pattaya do

[Bottlerocket]

To those who have done nothing wrong and, therefore, have nothing to fear by having your prints scanned or your DNA analysed at every arrival and departure gate you pass, what about when it's time for you to do something wrong? You know, when government gets out of control and it's time to fight them to get your rights as a human re-established. Do you you want a biometric RFID chip buried under your skin then? And, do you also agree that it's acceptable for the local constable to bring a team into your favorite pubs and randomly REQUIRE you to submit your urine for a drug test? Just wondering.

[BlackJack]

the scan is for what?

to say you are in the airport? or you have left the airport? or is it checked against a database? and how is that database structured and updated against your name and address?

This is a huge project - worldwide I think - massive storage - constantly tweaked and upgraded - more maintenance and IT staff - security issues

Better nick down to Panthip and get all this stuff now. Set it all up to look wizz bang and pretty.

Dont hold your breath as I havent seen a scanner yet that doesnt screw up on a regular basis. Or a computer for that matter

good luck and call me

I will be in the bunker

[Crushdepth]

If my fingerprint will keep one terrorist from boarding one plane, to me it's worth it. It's not asking me to give up one liberty or right to scan my fingerprint. It's asking me to tolerate a little inconvenience. Tell the families and people that have had to suffer from terrorists on planes that the inconvenience isn't worth it.

I don't think its worth it. I very much doubt that fingerprinting is going to stop terrorism (and the repeat offender rate of suicide bombers is quite low) so why engage in this excessively paranoid activity? Governments have got to be told to butt out of people's private lives at some point and it might as well be here.

9/11 and the 'war on terror' need to be put in perspective. 3,000 people were killed out of 300 million? I'm not willing to trade my personal freedom against such a pathetically small risk. There are more practical ways of dealing with terrorism than curtailing civil liberties or invading privacy - like not interfering in other countries politics.

Just for reference, more than 20,000 people have been killed in Iraq in the last 2 months alone. Terrorism is a small threat compared to the bastardry that governments are capable of.

[DennisJ]

Not a bad concept

I still don't understand why there is a need for ANY government to obtain my finger prints when entering their country with a legal document identifying me (passport)

Finger printing is a technique closely identified with a criminal record.

Forcing visitors to this technique is as much as saying: I don't trust the document you present to me for your identification.

I don't trust the visa in it given out by my own embassy or consular services.

In other words it questions the whole international travel agreements currently existing.

Finger printing and its future equivalent eye scanning followed later in time by DNA checking are steps on the way of total governmental control of its citizens and the citizens of any other country that happens to pass their borders. How the information is storaged used and shared is totally unknown to us.

By allowing governments to use these techniques, we are giving up the personal liberties and freedoms that so many people have fought and died for in our very recent history.

I wholeheartedly agree with you and those people who don't object and think it's normal are like sheep willingly allowing themselves being led to the slaughterhouse.