Korean Job Discussion Forums

[igotthisguitar]

Comment: 'I refuse to be fingerprinted'

Nigel Rumfitt QC, terrorism specialist, explains why he is opposed to compulsory fingerprinting at Heathrow.



Everyone using the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow for domestic flights will have to be fingerprinted. Who says so? Not Parliament. The British Airports Authority, a Spanish-owned private company, and British Airways say so.

Why? It's a government requirement, they tell us. But in free societies, government requirements come in the form of laws. Who made the requirement, when and in what terms?

Fingerprinting has been around for more than 100 years. In this country it has been used only to catch and identify criminals. No doubt that is why it carries a stigma. Compulsory mass fingerprinting is regarded as "unBritish", but the present Government seems determined to change our attitude.

A few years ago, with little publicity, the law was altered to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprints and DNA taken from suspects later acquitted or even released without charge. Police powers of arrest have been extended recently, allowing the more widespread obtaining of this data. Nonetheless, the Government has not yet dared to make mass fingerprinting compulsory. What this Government fears to do openly it tries to do by stealth.

Because you cannot be compelled to provide your fingerprints, both BAA and British Airways are saying that by choosing to fly through Terminal 5 you are "consenting" to the taking of your prints. That is disingenuous, to put it mildly. True, some people will not mind; others will object, but will not be prepared to abandon an important journey in order to register that objection. In practice, and without legislation, we will have become a nation that restricts the internal movement of its citizens by government decree.

Imagine how people would have reacted in the 1950s to the proposition that before boarding the Flying Scotsman at King's Cross you had to provide your fingerprints because the Home Secretary thought it a good idea.

These measures, it is said, will protect us against terrorism. That is nonsense. Modern Islamist terrorists want the world to know who they are. That's why they make video wills to show everyone exactly who has been martyred for the cause. Would any recent terrorist outrage have been prevented by ID cards or fingerprint records? If it would, why bring in vital security measures by the back door and confine them to domestic flights?

Another danger is that, at Terminal 5, illegal immigrants can swap boarding passes with domestic passengers and get into the country unchecked. This is because greedy BAA wants all passengers � domestic and international � to mingle in the same shopping mall before flying.

If this is only about verifying identity at the gate, why take four prints and not just one? Why keep these prints on file for "only" 24 hours instead of destroying them at the gate? To what use will the prints be put in that time? The Data Protection Act, quoted by BAA, in fact allows police access to this material.

This is not about security. It is about paving the way towards the database state, making it easier to force us to "consent" to giving our fingerprints when we apply for a passport. That's the final step before the compulsory ID card.

I already refuse to visit the United States because of oppressive security and I have indicated to BAA that I shall refuse to provide fingerprints unless I can be satisfied that it has a legal right to demand them. If the law has been changed to allow BAA to behave in this way, I shall find another airline.

Nigel Rumfitt QC is a specialist in serious crime, including terrorism.

Check the comments:

COMMENTS - 65

1. Posted by Dave McBay on March 26, 2008 01:25 PM

It isn't just terminal 5. I was finger-printed and photographed when transferring from a Terminal 4 flight to a Terminal 1 domestic shuttle. I was told in no uncertain terms that I would not be able to continue my journey unless I complied. The situation is ludicrous. What added insult to injury was the second finger-print check, just before boarding my second flight was staffed by 4 foreign born people. What sort of state finger-prints innocent locals and uses foreigners to inconvenience them? Madness. Our domestic flight left an hour late because of the security checks; the queues were so long that we had to sit on the tarmac whilst people's luggage was unloaded.

2. Posted by Frankie Howard on March 26, 2008 01:25 PM

Always makes me smile reading the "how dare they" comments from individuals opposed to progress. These things will happen regardless of the minority outcry. By all means "refuse to comply on principle" and "take your business elsewhere", just means the airport will be quieter for the rest of us. If you really think that it's not already a Big Brother/Police state then you'll completely deluded.

3. Posted by tim on March 26, 2008 01:24 PM

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

4. Posted by TheTurfBurner on March 26, 2008 01:24 PM

It is to be hoped the Information Commissioner will rule BAA's crude fingerprinting process unlawful under the Data Protection Act (News 24 March). Fingerprinting of air passengers is both invasive and unnecessary - is there no Passport or Immigration Control at Terminal 5? That is where undesirables should be caught, not at the domestic departure gate.

The British people MUST take a stand against this increasingly sinister surveillance culture. Criminals will easily avoid fingerprinting at T5 by simply leaving the terminal and completing their journey by train. Meanwhile, the law abiding will be spied on as part of the "softening-up" process for the introduction of ID Cards.

We must say NO. We are citizens of the United Kingdom - not suspects.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/839199/Comment-%27I-refuse-to-be-fingerprinted%27.html

[partialtone]

Yes, because fingerprinting is just a stone throws away from jackbooted thugs sterilizing me while I sleep.

I really can't stand all these conspiracy theorists. It makes me ashamed of being a liberal and pushes me closer to the right. They're the same people that swore up and down Kennedy was paralyzed by an umbrella and share the same mentality of people who think the second coming will 'definitely' happen in their lifetime.

Being off the grid is fine, but don't take the stance that it's the smarter or more noble choice.

[igotthisguitar]

[ttompatz]

Actually, blame the Americans.

They started this crap back in 2001/2 after the 9/11 attack on the WTC.

This is just tit-for-tat.

[partialtone]

[moosehead]

[igotthisguitar]

Yah, well ... whether on this part of the forum, or elsewhere, Partial-tone appears to be my latest stalker, shadow, harasser.

*shrugs*

Oh, i'm sorry, you'd like to fly?

Fingerprints please!

No, no ... we can take good care of this information.

Trust us

[partialtone]

[igotthisguitar]

For the record, if someone ( ANYONE ) is expecting me to submit my "fingerprints", optical eye-scan, DNA, X-RAYS, blood sample, or what have you,

... i will refuse to be "flying" anywhere ... PERIOD

LEST WE FORGET, THERE IS A WAR

A line has been drawn in the sand.

p.s. This reminds me, what's up with Heathrow? Seems they've hit some major sangs. CNN not really reporting on things much.

Hmmmmmm ...

[PGF]

[thiophene]

[igotthisguitar]