|
Caius -> RE: US to fingerprint EU visitors (6/25/2007 3:23:13 PM)
|
There seems to be some confusion between human/natural rights and civil rights here, but its largely an academic point. Regardless of the semantics of "the people," the U.S. has agreed to many international accords with regard to natural rights, more than a few of which might be relvant to this situation. And, as we're qouting the constitution, I'm sure we're all aware that it is quite explicit that treaties are to be regarded as the "supreme law of the land." Strong wording, but then of course, no more than that -- words. Heads of U.S. policy --including the much-touted founders being presented as the very incrnation of the light of reason here-- have been rejecting fundemental principles of treaties from the begening, culminating in the current abysmal state of affairs where most nations don't view them as possesing much practical value beyond the potential use of the forms they are written on as toilet paper.
But the larger point is moot as well. Do you really think these techniques are going to be long-restricted to foreign visitors. I've never felt more comfortable in my life assuring anyone of anyhting than I do when I say they won't. I'll be suprised if two years pass before similar policy instates such technology for Americans applying for passports and visas.
For me though, the most striking part of this story, what really makes this a diseased sausage of a piece of policy, is not the fact that this could very well be yet another step on apth towards become the most horrific police state ever -- this is true, but I see such signs so frequently these days, the majority of which make this program look fairly tame. Nor is it the aggravation of knowing the Eu will, as it has in past, respond by requiring the same conditions of American traellers entering its borders. Rather, its the balatant pork of the thing. Biometrics at this point are neither particularly secure nor efficient, regardless of the hype generated by the firms producing them. This has nothing to do with security and everyhting to do with a nice fat hi-tech subsidy of the type which is daily business for the U.S. government. This is a perfect example of what is called "welfare for the rich," one of the primary methods by which wealth is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands in the U.S. while the same people who most benefit from it urge their hand-picked political mouth-pieces to scream and carrying on over the "nanny state" and the pathetic pittance of resources that are fed towards social programs in this country.
That is to say, if you haven't enough sense to fear what such technologies might mean for the freedoms of citizens in any country, at least have the clarity to realize you are getting ass-fucked fiscally in the American context.
|
|
|
|
