News: US Begins Collection of Biometric Information on Non-Citizens Departing Country

Since 2004, the United States has collected biometric information from foreign visitors upon arrival, but not departure. That is now changing. The Obama administration is launching a pilot program to collect biometric information from non-U.S. citizens when they leave the country, according to Voice of America. The federal government began testing the system in Atlanta and Detroit this week. Robert Mocny, who leads the US-VISIT program, said

"We want to have biometric exit procedures because we want to have a better sense of who is in the country and who has left the country."

Departing non-citizens are required to give fingerprints that will be compared with prints taken when they applied for their U.S. visas or resident alien cards. The federal government aims to extend the program to all U.S. airports and seaports next year.

"Once a visa is issued and tied with a biometric, once a passport is issued and tied to a biometric, that passport or visa cannot be used by anybody else," added Mr. Mocny, who leads the US-VISIT programme. "There are tens of millions of lost or stolen passports that circulate the globe on the black market used by international criminals and terrorists. This [biometric verification] puts a stop to that."

Pictures That Just Won't Go Away...

From the BBC News site: photos which have been 'deleted' from social networking sites are often still available for long afterwards. In practice 'deletion' actually only results in the link to the photo being removed, rather than taking down the page where the photo is posted - if you type in the URL, you can still see the photo.

Presumably it's true that anyone who had a copy of the URL would have had an opportunity to take a copy of the photo anyway? Still, the fact that it is still out there and 'available' might be regarded as intrusive in any case. Do these companies have an obligation to preserve their user's privacy when it comes to these issues?

Should Local Councils have Surveillance Powers?

I should now be able to return to regular posting (and get round to responding to the comments some of you have left). Today I have two stories involving Burnley Borough Council's use of Surveillance.

First a recent story from the Sunday Times. Apparently they mounted a "direct surveillance operation" against an employee they suspected of using the shower while clocked in.

There have been loads of stories like this over the last few years, and I can't find anybody who defends surveillance for uses like these - reading the newspapers you might get the impression that there's widespread consensus that local councils should not be engaged in surveillance at all.

But the stories keep coming. Presumably the councils doing this think they are doing the right thing, and that they are acting in a proportionate manner - how can there be such a big gap between their view and the widespread public condemnation?

The second story concerns a case which would be easier to defend but I'd be fascinated to hear some responses to the case: a few years back they caught someone flytipping through use of covert CCTV. The cameras covered public space, and surely nobody would object if the dumper had been caught as the result of, say, a chance eyewitness.

So is this a form of surveillance councils should be engaged in? Or is this still inappropriate and disproportionate?

Savage Verdict

I liked Boris Johnson's opinion piece in the Telegraph today where he attacked Jaqui Smith's decision to list Michael Savage on a list of people 'banned' from entering the UK. Savage seems like a fairly nasty piece of work, but nobody seriously thinks that a visit from him would put anyone at risk, do they? As I said about Canada's exclusion of Galloway, this seems to be a case of using laws 'to send a message'. I think that's a bad idea. I think it makes people take the law less seriously.

Can you think of a case where law is sensibly used to 'send a message' rather than serving a directly practical purpose?

More on DNA Databases

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has a piece in the Telegraph on the proposed retention of DNA of those charged but not found guilty of crimes. Interestingly she points out that a disproportionate number of those whose DNA has been recorded are young, black men, commenting that it was only as a result of European human rights judges "who could remember when ethnic profiling meant something more sinister " that the government modified their policy.

She also mentions 'privacy' as a reason against such DNA retention. But I'm still uncertain as to why this is a matter of privacy. What private information can be derived from the data in question? Can intimate health issues be revealed for example? If this was possible then I think the case against retention would be water tight - but I've not seen anyone make this sort of argument.

Another scenario: perhaps the worry is that if someone with bad intentions got ahold of someone's DNA information they would then be able to track whether they had been in particular places, say (because traces of hair left behind could be tested) i.e. that people with bad intentions could use this info in the same way as the police do. Is this what people have in mind? Is this a significant risk?

Why Fuss About DNA?

In the Guardian Jonathan Myerson has a provocative opinion piece where he argues for a change in attitudes towards people's DNA being held on centralised government databases. He reckons everyone's DNA ought to be held, and that compared with other information we already relinquish without complaint - employment history, for example - people make far too much fuss about DNA.

Does this issue hinge solely on the question of how much information about a person DNA reveals? Would everybody being on such databases be fairer? Would such a system actually be logistically feasible?

Stop and Search

The Times has 2 pieces on the massive upsurge in the use of stop and search powers - a rise which has disproportionately affected ethnic minorities. This has been defended by police on the grounds that it is needed to combat terrorism.

There are so many issues one could talk about here, but I just want to pick out one line from the Met's defence: apparently stop and search is a vital tactic intended to "create a hostile environment for terrorists and provide a visible reassurance to the public".

I accept (as most surely do) that sometimes police work is going to inconvenience me. This is a very small price to pay for steps that make me safer. But 'reassuring the public' I'm less sure about - can you legitimately ask people to accept inconvenience in the name of 'reassuring the public'?