Hah!
Further to my article about BAA wanting to fingerprint its hapless passengers who have to endure the shopping mall that is Terminal 5 at Heathrow, it seems that even Nanny is worried that this is a step too far.
The Home Office denies ever having told BAA to use fingerprinting as an extra security measure, and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) says that the plan may be illegal.
The ICO believes that this is another step "on the road to a surveillance society", and has warned BAA that it might breach Data Protection laws.
A spokesman for the Information Commissioner said:
"Our concern is with the surveillance society. Is this another step on the road towards that kind of society? Why do they need fingerprints, and why four? Why are other airports able to operate with just photographs, and is this a proportionate response?"
Good for the ICO!
The ICO have issued the following advice to passenger, when asked for fingerprints passengers should demand to know why they were being taken, what would be done with them and how long would they be kept.
Make the system inoperable by sheer bloody mindedness.
Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com
I'd tell them to piss off.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a criminal and there is no way in hell I'd give them my fingerprints.
If everyone refused, what could nanny do about it?
This is another step of criminalizing the whole British population.
On the other hand ...
ReplyDeleteMany people flying BA from Heathrow will be heading for the USA.
When they arrive there and attempt to pass through immigration they will have finger prints scanned and photos taken which I believe includes some element of iris scanning though I may be wrong about that. So far.
Anyway, the point is that anyone who accepts the requirements in order to enter the USA can hardly object to the same requirement at their point of departure a few hours earlier.
By these means do totalitarian concepts take root and infest our world. The threat of an act becomes more widely destructive than the act itself. We have nothing to fear but fear.
Grant
I'm all in favour of strong and systematic security at airports if it enhances my safety, but I'm opposed to these types of intrusive measures introduced just because some designer makes a monumental mistake.
ReplyDeleteI remember the last time I was at Los Angeles International, waiting for my flight to London. Security wasn't intrusive but I just knew that everyone in that departure lounge was being scanned and analysed. That included a shifty-looking Arab guy acting like he was nervous and uncomfortable and quite aware that he was making everyone else nervous and uncomfortable in the process.
Sure enough, when the time came to board, it was announced there would be an additional security check.
Most people were relieved to see him being directed into a special queue of suspicious and shifty-looking characters for a more intrusive security check.
They put me about three places in the queue behind him.
Anon1 and anon 2:
ReplyDeleteYou think that allowing nanny to fingerprint you on a domestic flight is ok?
ARE YOU FREAKING NUTS?
With all due respect, you have been infected with what I call the "British Disease". It does not matter what kind of nonsensical, facist, bat-shattery nanny comes up with, you go along. You have "Nothing to hide.."
Be it Nanny inspecting your garbage cans or listening in on your phone calls, you don't mind.
Nanny floated a trial balloon recently about issuing a Carbon Card to everyone. There was no uproar about it and you can bet your last dollar, it is coming.
Wake up Britain.
Test
ReplyDeleteIf you are 'difficult' or wont comply they can just add to your waiting time. What will you do about that.
ReplyDeleteAnd they tell the Americans on you too.
No Anon 3 you've misread it.
ReplyDeleteGrant will correct me if I'm wrong (and admittedly having read his post again I suppose there is indeed scope for your interpretation) however, it seemed pretty clear to me (from his last paragraph) that he was implying the opposite to what you've interpreted.
One of the things I was trying to do was separate out the two very different issues that are being muddled up together in this argument.
Issue 1 relates to the security needed to help people feel safe at 33,000 ft.
Issue 2 relates to BAA's decision to finger print people in effect as part of an access control mechanism to shops at Terminal 5.
I like to feel safe at 33,000 feet but I don't like to be treated like a criminal just because BAA have messed up their strategy for how they give travellers access to shops at Terminal 5 (that was the gist to my previous comment on Ken's first entry).
The two things in my mind are completely separate and, as such, are managed quite successfully at the other four Heathrow terminals - without the need for fingerprinting.
cramerj re "tell the Americans on you too".
ReplyDeleteI haven't been to USA since August 2001, and haven't bothered since then as the security/immigration controls imposed there since 911 make it a completely unpleasant experience to travel there.
I dare say they will manage to get along without me visting them.
Anon 5:56 PM - you got my drift.
ReplyDeletePersonally I find it offensive to be expected to use a fingerprint or prints to access a computer let alone a ludicrously priced shop at Heathrow. (And all airport shops do set ludicrous prices so I think I am on safe ground there.)
Ken makes a good point. I have been to the US twice in recent years, both time on business related activities and with some internal flying. It was not fun although to be fair some aspect of the security system were more sensibly applied than they would be in the UK.
15 to 20 years ago I used to fly regularly, most often to European locations but sometime the US and further afield. I could usually enjoy the travel and it was not uncommon to have a spare seat available in order to spread out a little during the journey which reduced the negative aspects, such as they were, of access and egress to the flight and to the country being visited.
The US was always a bit of a slow process but I had a visa so it was relatively pain free.
These days air travel in general is simply unpleasant in all aspects by comparison with back then. I prefer to avoid it unless there are no options.
I suppose I could claim that I am 'saving the planet' but I don't have a sick bag handy so will not dwell on that thought.
Anon 2:05 PM
I'm not sure where you hail from but, apart from the slight disconnect between the terminal 5 intention to fingerprint for shopping versus travelling, I can't see why you would differentiate between fingerprinting passengers on international and internal domestic flights.
If perceived safety from lunatics in the air is the objective the start and end points of the journey are not very relevant are they?
Grant
Grant