BAA now wants your fingerprints before you fly - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

BAA now wants your fingerprints before you fly

Scribbles Avatar
8y, 8m agoPosted 8 years, 8 months ago
I think this is the thin end of the wedge we are seeing. What next, London Transport having fingerprint scanners at the turnstiles? I'm getting sick of this authoritarian approach to security.
Orwell was right :(
Other Links From Fly:
Scribbles Avatar
8y, 8m agoPosted 8 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(46) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Now we have a company along with a 'government' resorting to authoritarian rule! I will certainly no longer fly with BA.
#2
according to the poster it's baa not ba, therefore it's every flight as baa owns te airports.

I couldn't care either way, I have nothing to hide.
#3
colal
Now we have a company along with a 'government' resorting to authoritarian rule! I will certainly no longer fly with BA.


It isn't British Airways - its BAA Limited - It owns Seven Airports in the UK which I believe are:
* Aberdeen Airport
* Edinburgh Airport
* Glasgow International Airport
* London Gatwick Airport
* London Heathrow Airport
* London Stansted Airport
* Southampton Airport
#4
I had my fingerprints taken when I went to the USA.

I have no 'real' problem with confirming someones identity when travelling abroad as we've always had passports and this is the next logical step. What I do have a problem with is if the government use this as a sneaky way to introduce ID cards with biometric data (i.e internal passport).

I don't see why we need to prove who we are everytime a jumped up authoritarian screams (use german accent ;-)) "Ver are your papers!!".
#5
if you travel to america, when you go through customs your finger prints are taken. If it makes flying safe, then I don't see the problem.

I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide.
1 Like #6
Let's use Luton instead lol
I certainly have no intention of giving my fingerprints to anyone other than an appointed officer of the law. Not that I would ever need to.
#7
I have nothing to hide like most other people but, i still don't like this idea. They trot out all this stuff about safety but if a terrorist wants to cause death and destruction he will find some way round it. In most cases these people have no criminal records and want to die anyway, so what's the point of all this surveliance on ordinary people?
#8
This is not like giving your fingerprints is it ? ie with ink
#9
it could help catch someone who has commited another crime.
#10
sophie***
I have nothing to hide like most other people but, i still don't like this idea. They trot out all this stuff about safety but if a terrorist wants to cause death and destruction he will find some way round it. In most cases these people have no criminal records and want to die anyway, so what's the point of all this surveliance on ordinary people?


it's called control ... to justify more taxes on common people levied, and argue that because of the time and effort they supposedly take into making airports safer (not!) there is a cost implication. the scots send out a clear message that they're not gonna tolerate people who try to blow up their airports so why can't we do the same without entrusting the authorities who work with 'commercial partners' to access all our personal data.
#11
waterloo
This is not like giving your fingerprints is it ? ie with ink


nope, fingerprint scanners
#12
t0mm
nope, fingerprint scanners

Thanks what i thought :thumbsup:
#13
Agree with scribbles and sophie. It's not a matter of whether we have something to hide or not; the vast majority of people have nothing serious to hide, but we should resist giving our freedoms away too easily. The government and other organisations like BAA are playing on our fears to make unreasonable demands on our privacy. Furthermore, they (the gov't at least) have shown themselves incapable of protecting the information they collect about us. (I use Liverpool and Manc airports - hope they don't succomb to the domino effect).
#14
waterloo
This is not like giving your fingerprints is it ? ie with ink


t0mm
nope, fingerprint scanners


Vitually the same thing; 'ink' prints get scanned into digital databases.
1 Like #15
Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Would fingerprinting stop the Glasgow Bombers, who were here legally and had all the papers they ever needed to live here?
They would give their fingerprints to get here, and just blow something up when they'r here.

How does it make us safer?

It doesnt.
Its a load of rubbish.

Every expert in the nation has come out and stated, ID cards will actualyl make the situation worse.
And with the Governments ill-managed data systems, it wouldnt be too hard for your fingerprints to fall into the wrong hands.

Its like the DNA database, (which thankfully us up here dont have any part in)
Any crim can go collect some fag-ends, leave them at a crime, and when it gets checked against the database, you better hope you have an alibi.
Fingerprints can be copied.
http://www.ccc.de/biometrie/fingerabdruck_kopieren.xml?language=en
First site from google, and its pretty much all you need is, superglue, theatrical glue, and a pc.

We need stronger checks on who the papers get given to, not giving them more when they are already in the system.
After all, the glasgow bombers would have ID cards, and assumed to be perfectly safe, members of society.

Its all rubbish, and is just an excuse for the government to harvest as much data as they can under the excuse of "terrorism".

It wont make us safer, and as all the experts say, will actualyl make it worse.
#16
GOOD! This will help stop criminals leaving/entering the country. Any security steps we can take to fight terrorism and crime get a thumbs up from me:thumbsup:
1 Like #17
Kitten13
it could help catch someone who has commited another crime.


What constitutes a crime? Not paying an unwarranted parking ticket? Doing 32mph in a 30mph limit? Paying your road tax a few days late?
My problem with this is exactly what Ungreat said. I have no doubt that the govt would use the data for it's proposed national database. I don't want to be on some database that could be compromised by anyone at any time. Apart from which, I don't want to live in a society where some 'watchdog' knows my every move. That isn't security, it's a police state.

"We are not living in a police state!"
[SIZE="1"]Tony Blair[/SIZE]

Give it time Tony, give it time ...
#18
authoritarianism & incompetence will not make a good mix, I feel like a cross between a herded sheep and a criminal already at the airports.
Complained (mildly) once, and you'd have thought I was strapped up and ready to explode, the way we were treated.
These f*****'s have forgotten we're customers, and our own apathy keeps it going.
#19
Finger printing is not just about criminal activity. A finger print is nearly a unique identifier of a person. It is a perfect tool to use for marketing, personal profiling, travels on public transport, door entry, grant of permission etc etc with millions of application. It is not just about policing. Once the fingerprint control is mastered then the next step is to control the DNA and genes of each person and then you can monitor and control health and behaviour as well (which is a superior system to the finger print which only identifies). The best control with finger prints of people is to read that person finger print prior to using a machine. Then each person can be tracked with each keystroke or mouse movement. Resist strongly against this level of control. We rather die of something at risk rather than absolute control with no freedom but 100% safe!
#20
I know it's slightly off-topic, but I do love the fingerprint reader on my new Dell M1330. Great shortcut to passwords and apps. But at least I keep control of it and can wipe the records when I'm done with the machine (at least I hope so...)
banned#21
Kitten13
if you travel to america, when you go through customs your finger prints are taken. If it makes flying safe, then I don't see the problem.

I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide.


How does it make flying safe?

Do you think aircraft would not have crashed into tall buildings if the passengers had been finger printed? None of them had a criminal record (AFAIK) so what difference would it have made? And if they have, do you think people with speeding tickets should eb barred from flying? OK, bar people using this ID who have been convicted or suspected of terrorism. Any idea how many they would catch? Do you not think potential bombers would wise up and use another suidide deciple? Its a pointless excercise that some high paid exec has dreamed up. Nothing more.

Why should people be submitted to this intrusion by a public limited company - which is what BAA is?

Since the government cant be trust to keep confidential information safe (as proven so many times by lost discs and laptops), defiantely no company can be entrusted.
#22
In japan they take a picture of everyone who enters the airport. I don't mind my finger print being taken, as long as its keeping everyone safe
banned 1 Like #23
Kitten13
it could help catch someone who has commited another crime.


Are you saying the police are inept at their duties and need vigilante companies to assist them do their jobs?
#24
Liddle ol' me
I know it's slightly off-topic, but I do love the fingerprint reader on my new Dell M1330. Great shortcut to passwords and apps. But at least I keep control of it and can wipe the records when I'm done with the machine (at least I hope so...)


Scary thing is, the government and shops have thought about using things liek that (door entry and the likes)
Cant remember but there was a dept store wanting to do it.

That link i posted earlier shows how to get the fingerprints of someone, and easily bypass the security.
And any police investigation for damage and "oh look its, "so and so" that was in the office at the time.
The technology to bypass it is available at the moment, and the government havent even started implementing anything yet.
[admin]#25
I agree also that airport fingerprinting is an unnecessary and ineffective means of preventing terrorists. It is a means of control and another method of conditioning the public to giving away liberties without noticing.

I think the best example of why this growing police state is ineffective is Timothy Mcveigh in the US. A white, Christian, American citizen from middle America committed a massive attack of terrorism on US soil. Tell me how anything done in the last 7 years would have prevented that attack.

The terrorist watch list in the US now has 700,000 people on it. How frightening is that. It seems to have very little to do with 'terrorists' anymore...
#26
Arent they thinking of doing iris scanners too, I like the idea, maybe we can all feel a little safer then:)
#27
I don't like the 'Big Brother' mentality anymore than the next man but if this is how they mean to run it -

"Under the plans, prints will be checked at the gate to try to ensure the person who checked in is the same as the person who is boarding the aircraft.
BAA said the data was encrypted straight away and destroyed within 24 hours, in line with the act."

I guess I can live with that - Like most things nowadays what choice have we got? :?
#28
How would this system work without a central government database of fingerprints that prove your identity?

Just because they take your fingerprint does not mean they know who you are without some means of comparison. This stinks to me of the government slipping in the framework of biometric ID cards under the radar.

If biometric ID cards with info like DNA, Iris and fingerprints became the norm just think what could be done with it. Picking up all loose rubbish and swabbing for dna/fingerprints then sending off automatic fines, bit of and extreme example but it happens with speed cameras. There is even talk of including RFID chips in the cards that contain all your personal data and are "scanned" by receivers to track your movement. Whats to stop companies creating their own receivers and spamming you with personlised ads as you enter a shop like something out of minority report.

I love technology and think we should be constantly pushing forwards, but not to the loss of personal freedom. And to all those who claim "I have nothing to hide" whats to stop the government from moving the goalposts and making something you do believe in illegal. Many people protested to the war in Iraq and i'm sure all their names are now on a list somewhere.
#29
i worked for a company awhile ago that was trying to introduce a smart id card (eg passport) to combat identity fraud then they found out they could make money from including the minimal risk of terrorism. i can tell you one thing ... the data list was definitely open to those authorised to access it and alter the content.

imagine if you as you know yourself is unable to proof beyond doubt that you are not X the terrorist. even with your family around etc. what safeguard do you have that your rights as an innocent bloke living your life minding your own business that you're not the mistaken identity because someone stole your identity and used it to commit acts of unmentionables. your whole history wiped out, by whom, some authority that doesnt even know you and depends on some ridiculous so-called DNA database to prove whom you are. would you then doubt you exist? yes and how is the info used?

ok a little far fetched but like little lab rats we comply so easily about giving a little a little. if you have lived in or come from places where there is no real elections and human rights are practically non-existent you will know that we brits take our freedom and rights for granted.
banned#30
octobergirl;1765448
Arent they thinking of doing iris scanners too, I like the idea, maybe we can all feel a little safer then:)


They already do in the US as well as fingerprints. Had to have mine done in 2006 and 2007. I doubt I will bother going back to be honest (after 7 visits in all). I couldn't face being asked if I had any "blood sausage" again!!

"Only in America" and hope that's where it stays!
1 Like #31
jonnyq;1765592
with respect - i'm not having a go at you because we are all guilty of it - it is this apathy which is a bad thing, not just in terms of 'big brother' but in general, the feeling that we can't do anything about it

No worries its not a problem - apathy is not normally something in my nature,
check out what happened recently to me when I tried to be 'pro active' -
http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/149268/thieving-s-s/showpost.php?p=1621118&postcount=8
can't say I've any faith in the government depts to 'do' the right thing for Joe Public :x
#32
Ungreat
How would this system work without a central government database of fingerprints that prove your identity?

Just because they take your fingerprint does not mean they know who you are without some means of comparison. This stinks to me of the government slipping in the framework of biometric ID cards under the radar.


It isn't being used for that purpose. It is designed to prove that the person checking in is also the same person that is getting on the plane:

From here:
"BAA explained that the design of Terminal 5 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.

By introducing biometric data for passengers on internal flights, BAA said, this potential loophole could be closed, so boosting security.

BAA added that the security scheme was agreed after consultation with the Home Office.

The biometric data will be destroyed after 24 hours.
"
#33
guv
Are you saying the police are inept at their duties and need vigilante companies to assist them do their jobs?



sometimes it would appear so. Sometimes the police are brilliant at their jobs, other times not.

My dads car was smashed up by some yobs on scooters, we had witnneses, and the reg numbers of the scooters, but the police did nothing.

and it's not what I was getting at about the finger prints being able to help catch people guilty of other crimes. I was thinking more about when a series crime has been comitted, and the purpitrator trys to flee the country. Does everything have to be written down as it is meant or can people not think beyong just what is written?
banned#34
Kitten13;1767611
sometimes it would appear so. Sometimes the police are brilliant at their jobs, other times not.

My dads car was smashed up by some yobs on scooters, we had witnneses, and the reg numbers of the scooters, but the police did nothing.

and it's not what I was getting at about the finger prints being able to help catch people guilty of other crimes. I was thinking more about when a series crime has been comitted, and the purpitrator trys to flee the country. Does everything have to be written down as it is meant or can people not think beyong just what is written?


I can think beyond what is written, but I wonder if others can. You appear to be suggesting that unidentified criminals who are trying to flee the country is reason to infringe basic human liberties. Do you honestly think its ok for the police to share the fingerprint database with public companies? Why stop there?
#35
well the government sell our details to marketing companies. and tbh with the amount of disks and files which have gone missing recently, I guess most of our details are obtainable from a great many places. May aswell just get it over with, it's going to happen anyway, as people keep on voteing the monkeys into power
banned#36
Kitten13;1767823
well the government sell our details to marketing companies. and tbh with the amount of disks and files which have gone missing recently, I guess most of our details are obtainable from a great many places.


There is a huge difference between details on an electorial register than what this is about. I surprised you cant see the distinction.

May as well just get it over with, it's going to happen anyway, as people keep on voting the monkeys into power


Since the Tories are the ones who originally proposed ID cards with biometric details, that seems irrelevant. However, this isn't law and much of the ID card system has been scuppered through opposition.
#37
tbh, it hasn't it has been put on a back burner for the majority of people, but they want all none uk nationals living here to have id cards, then young people/students, so they are trying sneeky ways to filter it in.
#38
Kitten13
people keep on voteing the monkeys into power


lol - I'm sure these 'monkeys' can all spell voting and other big words :roll:

EDIT: and the point here is not to criticise you, but to criticise your belief that somehow because politicians are in positions of power that you can say anything you want about them. What gives you the right to target an entire group of people and call them monkeys? You might get a bit more respect from here if you demonstate some understanding of the issues rather than come out with this sort of thoughtless dross.
#39
Kitten13
May aswell just get it over with, it's going to happen anyway, as people keep on voteing the monkeys into power


The sad thing is it's the best of a bad bunch. Voting Lib-Dem would be a wasted vote and people have a very short memory when it comes to the Tories and the state they left the country in.

HUKD Party for the next election! :p
#40
Ungreat
The sad thing is it's the best of a bad bunch. Voting Lib-Dem would be a wasted vote and people have a very short memory when it comes to the Tories and the state they left the country in.


This is exactly why nothing will change in this country. People don't vote for the party that has the policies they believe in, they vote for who they think has a chance of winning. In other words, just Labour or Conservative. Why? It's those parties that have gotten this country to the point it is at today with lots of people saying that the country has gone to the dogs etc. And like you said, now Labour has been in power for many years. many people have forgotten that the same was said towards the end of the Conservative Government, and that many of the policies people are now complaining about were first introduced by the Conservatives themsleves.

The two main parties are no longer driven by ideology, but by focus groups and polls, which is why they are both now in the middleground of the political spectrum. As a result they end up fighting over a tiny section of that spectrum and whilst they do their best to make themselves stand out above the other as being 'different', in order to grab the headlines they so desperately crave to boost their standings in the polls, in truth there isn't that much difference between them. It's this cramped position that leads to cramped thinking and the lack of big/radical ideas that will change anything.

People say they want change, but unless people start to vote for the parties that actually represent the policies they believe in, whether they have a chance of winning or not, this political situation isn't ever going to change and neither is the country.

Ok, getting dizzy from being up on ths soapbox, can I come down now? :oops:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!