Wabbit Ears wrote: » I wonder just how many of the NO camp are currently Gmail and Google chrome or apple Ipad/Iphone users who are blissfully unaware of their naivety!!
Kevin Irving wrote: » If you have nothing to hide.... is the worst argument ever. I'm not a criminal, but no way in hell will I carry ID everywhere I go just for the sake of it. Honestly, I don't really care about the odd criminal or two crossing our borders. Catching them is not worth the inconvenience for everyone else. As of now, most of the most dangerous criminals aren't even on the run because there's no arrest warrant. So you wouldn't catch them anyway. If the crime was serious enough to be arrested at tge airport, the Gardai should alread have caught them.
tayto lover wrote: » Do you carry a Driving Licence? Do you carry a Dole Card? Don't you carry a passport when you travel? A fingerprint does not weigh anything. It can prove your innocence and speed your travel just as it can curtail the movements of the guilty or wanted.
ResearchWill wrote: » Can you give figures of the number of criminal doing what you say. So when we invest millions or from past tract record billions in this scheme we know it is actually solving a problem. We can't stop cocaine comming into the country through our huge coast line how is finger printing and DNA from everyone going to stop people who don't want to be detected coming in by boat. Also the scheme will destroy our all ready fragile tourist economy. I know people who refuse to travel to the USA because of the security they employ, not criminals just people who would rather spend their money in a country that welcomes them as a honest person not a potentional criminal.
tayto lover wrote: » I don't know how many criminals are doing that and neither does anyone else BUT if stopped only a few and spared the pain of the victims, which can last a lifetime, then it would be worth it to me. Having it in force might prevent very many from attempting to get in here so that they can continue their law-breaking unimpeded. I really don't see that it can do any damage at all.
ResearchWill wrote: » So to be clear, we don't know if we have a problem, if we do have a problem we don't know the size of it, we don't know how much it will cost and we don't know how effective it will be. We don't know how many tourists it will put off or the cost to the economy, we don't know will it be illegal under EU law. Does the person who came up with this idea work for the HSE sounds just like what our health ministry would think up. So you don't mind spending say a billion a year to stop one old lady been mugged. With out knowing the size of the problem or the cost of the fix how can anyone say it's a good idea.
bbam wrote: » An ID card is useful in the street where DNA is more of an investigatory tool.. I see the usual "i wouldn't trust them with my DNA" and "I don't want to feel like a criminal" stuff... Giving fingerprints or DNA samples doesn't mean your a criminal, so why should you feel like one, unless you actually have something to hide.. This would make huge in-roads into solving crime..
Wompa1 wrote: » I've known a couple of people who said they would not go to the US because of the invasion of their privacy when entering. Those two people went to Australia.... I've travelled to both. Australias border patrol was much stricter in my eyes. Don't tend to hear much complaints about that.
Neewbie_noob wrote: » As the thread title says, should people be fingerprinted upon entering and leaving the country, regardless of citizenship? Here are my reasons.Criminals who (are presumably fingerprinted by police by electronic means) will be seen leaving the country if they are remanded on bail, although their passport is often seized during this, they could easily flee to the UK with a driving license, other ID, or if they are citizens of other countries, they can use another passport. If a person is wanted in Ireland (for, just say, child maintenance reasons), when they re-enter Ireland they will be apprehended when their fingerprints "set off alarm bells". If someone is suspicially entering and leaving the country they can easily be tracked. This can also be used to prevent identity theft, illegal immigration and welfare fraud (say, people wh might be claiming welfare in Timbuktu and back in Ireland). In case someone loses or "loses" their passport or ID in transit, they can merely scan their fingerprint and their photo will come up on screen. If a dossier is kept of every Irish citzen's fingerprints of foreigners' fingerprints (inlcuding British) in Ireland, if a crime is commited, then the perpetrator can quickly, efficiently and easily be tracked. I am aware that the open border with NI will pose a problem, if the UK don't impose such border restrictions on people then they can easily fly to Belfast and then get the train / bus / car to the Republic, unless we keep a dossier with the UK. So what do y'all think. An in before someone just responds with "NO" or the PC brigade and Liberals responding with "it's an invasion of our privacy". So, Discuss.
Judge Pollak, who is a former dean of the law schools at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, also noted ''alarmingly high'' error rates when fingerprint examiners took proficiency tests; in 1995 only 44 percent of 156 law enforcement examiners could correctly identify all five prints in the test, and in a 1998 study the number improved to only 58 percent.
bbam wrote: » Definitely.. Fingerprints and DNA samples. As should every citizen in the state be compelled to supply the same. I also feel that ID cards should be compulsory to carry at all times. If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem...
ResearchWill wrote: » I have travelled to both, no problem in either, but perception is the issue, (but did feel more welcome in Australia) if people traveling to spend their money for a weekend or a week or two feel it's just not worth the trouble they may go to another place.
Wompa1 wrote: » What was said to you in America to make you feel unwelcome? Was one of the Border Patrol people a pr1ck to you? Where else would they go? The UK scans your eye, Australia do both, US does both. I'm not entirely sure about the rest of Europe. I know when I went to Greece I felt really unwelcome and that was from one European country to another one.
ResearchWill wrote: » I did not say I was made to feel unwelcome, I said I was made to feel more welcome in Australia.
Wompa1 wrote: » ok. I was made to feel more welcome by my dog when I got home in the evenings than in either Australia or the US.
minidazzler wrote: » That is the dumbest argument that your camp make. It's absolutely retarded. Of course you have something to fear from the government having DNA and fingerprints on file for everyone. What if they take a dislike to someone and need him out of the way? Do you think governments aren't above using what they have to plant evidence? .
V_Moth wrote: » A couple of (common) misconceptions mentioned in this thread: -You have show your Passport when picking up Social Welfare payments at the Post Office. Also, there is a new card with photo ID being rolled out. -Foot and car passengers on ferries into/out of Britain are checked for ID. Same goes for France. Also, a database of DNA and fingerprints would be too costly and complex to be feasible.
ResearchWill wrote: » You do not have to show passport to collect social welfare, you can be asked to produce photo ID, http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Press/PressReleases/2009/Pages/pr060409.aspx I assume the reason for the photo ID for social welfare is that many collecting same did not have passport or driving licence. Yes foot passengers on ferry can be checked for ID but they do not need a passport or even photo ID if coming from the UK.
ResearchWill wrote: » So you are saying gmail takes my DNA while my iPad steals my fingerprints.
tayto lover wrote: » No. I said "I" didn't know. Maybe tourists would feel a lot safer if such requirement were in force. Neither do I know who came up with the idea, I just gave my opinions on it. We also don't know how much it would cost so your rant of a billion might be far too high or even too low. Without knowing the cost how can anyone say it's a bad idea, it could be well worth it. It could save many a persons life and we don't know how much a life is worth either.
tayto lover wrote: » Photo I.D. is probably required to prevent dole fraud. I wonder how much that costs?
Wabbit Ears wrote: » No, but what they are doing is mapping out everything to do with your habits and life from your e-mails, purchases, browsing history etc. Makes simply having a fingerprint or DNA sample to be a completely benign and almost trivial nothing.
TheFisherKing wrote: » Uh huh huh huh, heh heh, uh huh huh huh I thought the thread said finger people.
