Fingerprints At Airports

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I read today, that BAA plans to have fingerprints taken at Airports to improve secruity, and some silly people, have claimed that this could breached the data protection act, what a load of tosh, we already have eye scanners at airports, so what is the difference with having fingerprints taken and held, just think, that if this was done and held on a database, just think of what it could do, prevent crime etc,only the other day, we had a man dressed up as a european woman, fully dressed and cover, who robbed a jewellers, but if we had a fingerprint database, the culprit could be caught and punished, such as airlines, we need tougher secruity at airports, it has already been proven over recent weeks, where people have broken onto airport grounds and got onto planes, and where a reporter actually got onto a plane, l think that flying would be much safer to fly, if we had much tougher secruity.

[Xaccers]

Would it encourage people to use full stops?

If I trusted the authorities to handle it properly, I'd not have a problem, but unfortunately they've shown time and time again that they are not trustworthy.
As for fingerprints, the case of Shirley McKie demonstrates how wrong they can be.
http://www.shirleymckie.com/

[joesnake]

This isnt "some silly people" its the information Commisioner's Office. Full story is here:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...eathrow123.xml

And the iris recognition is not conducted by the BAA (a private company) who want to take the fingerprints, but by the immigration service. You might be happy having your fingerprints taken and held by a private company but I am not.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I read today, that BAA plans to have fingerprints taken at Airports to improve secruity, and some silly people, have claimed that this could breached the data protection act, what a load of tosh, we already have eye scanners at airports, so what is the difference with having fingerprints taken and held, just think, that if this was done and held on a database, just think of what it could do, prevent crime etc,only the other day, we had a man dressed up as a european woman, fully dressed and cover, who robbed a jewellers, but if we had a fingerprint database, the culprit could be caught and punished, such as airlines, we need tougher secruity at airports, it has already been proven over recent weeks, where people have broken onto airport grounds and got onto planes, and where a reporter actually got onto a plane, l think that flying would be much safer to fly, if we had much tougher secruity.

This is another classic case of "if you have nothing to hide don't worry", by going down this road we hand over more and more of our civil liberties. Don't just surrender them on a whim! because getting them back will be a darn sight harder than giving them away.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I read today, that BAA plans to have fingerprints taken at Airports to improve secruity, and some silly people, have claimed that this could breached the data protection act, what a load of tosh, we already have eye scanners at airports, so what is the difference with having fingerprints taken and held, just think, that if this was done and held on a database, just think of what it could do, prevent crime etc,only the other day, we had a man dressed up as a european woman, fully dressed and cover, who robbed a jewellers, but if we had a fingerprint database, the culprit could be caught and punished, such as airlines, we need tougher secruity at airports, it has already been proven over recent weeks, where people have broken onto airport grounds and got onto planes, and where a reporter actually got onto a plane, l think that flying would be much safer to fly, if we had much tougher secruity.

Arthur, a couple of things.......

a) it was a 6' 6" man in a burqa, pushing a push-chair, who buzzed the jewellers to be let in; when they opened the outside door, his accomplices ran in. They were all wearing gloves (including the giant TV), so having a fingerprint database would have added no value whatsoever, so I don't understand why you refer to it.

b) how would having a fingerprint database have stopped the reporter getting onto a plane, or people running onto runways?

c) what does having your fingerprint checked at an airport have to do with preventing crime and improving security?

btw, the reason for these measures at Heathrow T5? Airport International
"BAA explained that the design of T5 meant it was necessary the measures were introduced.
International and domestic passengers will use the same public areas after check-in, and BAA says this means potential criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants arriving from other countries "could bypass border controls" and exchange boarding passes with domestic passengers who had already checked-in.
Potentially, BAA said, they could then board a domestic flight, where proof of identity is not required at the moment, fly on to UK airport and leave without having to go through passport control."

So we have to have our fingerprints taken (along with pictures, which they do already) because BAA designed the airport with a security flaw. As the Information Commissioner in Xaccer's link says
"Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith questioned why BAA needed to use fingerprinting at Heathrow when other airports like Gatwick and Manchester rely on photographs to ensure security at their common departure lounges.
He said photographs were "less intrusive" and BAA's case for fingerprinting at Heathrow had not been made."

[Xaccers]

So hang on, in T5 the departure lounge is also the arrivals lounge? Which bright spark came up with that one?
All the airports I can think of have passport control straight after you get off the plane, then you go to baggage reclaim, then through customs and out to arrivals in the airport - seperate to the departure lounge. If you're getting onto a connecting flight, you still have to go out through customs then check back in and pass through passport control on the way to the departure lounge just like anyone else.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So hang on, in T5 the departure lounge is also the arrivals lounge? ....

This happens in US airports, which also use biometric identification.

As I see it, the system at the moment relies solely on a visual identification by a member of the ground crew. Adding fingerprint recognition will improve the accuracy of identification; if the fingerprints do not match, the passenger will not be allowed to board until further checks are carried out.

I admit i havn't gone into this in great detail but design fault strikes me quite hard and rather then correct the design fault they want us all to have our fingerprints on their database.....don't think so thank you. This was the shiny new terminal that cost tens if not hundreds of millions to make and someone couldn't include a stud wall not very impressive is it.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

... and someone couldn't include a stud wall not very impressive is it.

I suppose that would mean they would have to have two of everything (Starbucks, Dixons, Tie Rack) and half the space. I bet the current scheme looked like a great idea on the accountant's spreadsheet.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

He said photographs were "less intrusive" and BAA's case for fingerprinting at Heathrow had not been made

Less intrusive but also less exact. Personally I'd be OK with it *IF* there were guarantees the data was wiped after you flew out. (actually I'd be OK with it full stop as my fingerprints and DNA are already logged but thats another argument)

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As for fingerprints, the case of Shirley McKie demonstrates how wrong they can be.
http://www.shirleymckie.com/

Except she was at the crime scene... (errr allegedly )

Besides that a full fingerprint is virtually foolproof, it's only when you get into fragments and smudges of a fingerprint issues arise.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Except she was at the crime scene... (errr allegedly )

Besides that a full fingerprint is virtually foolproof, it's only when you get into fragments and smudges of a fingerprint issues arise.

Unfortunately fingerprint recognition technology uses the same techniques as manual recognition, finding a small number of matching details and claim it's identical.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Unfortunately fingerprint recognition technology uses the same techniques as manual recognition, finding a small number of matching details and claim it's identical.

So by that reckoning all criminal convictions based on fingerprint evidence are unsafe?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

So by that reckoning all criminal convictions based on fingerprint evidence are unsafe?

Technically yes, however they only have to match a certain number of details (I think lower in Scotland than the rest of the UK) for it to be considered acceptably identical.

Basically, two fingerprints could have the required number of details the same, but actually be from different people.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Unfortunately fingerprint recognition technology uses the same techniques as manual recognition, finding a small number of matching details and claim it's identical.

But as it is machine read and not someone glancing at two photos or equally the signature on the back of a credit card it is more likely to be reliable.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

But as it is machine read and not someone glancing at two photos or equally the signature on the back of a credit card it is more likely to be reliable.

It's only as reliable as the number of details it's programmed to match for.
AFAIK neither manual or automatic search for non-matches, ie where a loop should be there's a swirl, as the fingerprint could be rotated or smudged.

Either way, having arrivals able to enter the departure lounge is illogical and a major security risk which should not have been allowed in the first place.