Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday January 25 2015, @02:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-check-out-any-time-you-like-but-you-can-never-leave-♩♩♬♪♫ dept.

Proposed legislation just passed out of committee has the stated goal, “to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to gain and maintain operational control of the international borders of the United States.”

Down inside the "Secure Our Borders First Act" is a clause which calls for a biometric data exit system, (mentioned briefly here). From this news item:

The Secure our Borders First Act would require full implementation of a biometric exit data system, which would require persons heading from the U.S. to Canada to not only be stopped and interviewed by Canadian authorities, as they currently are, but also by U.S. authorities, which has never been the case. This would require billions of dollars of plaza expansions on the U.S. side of the border, and new Customs and Border Protection officers to staff these currently-nonexistent booths and gates.

Elsewhere, biometrics were defined as fingerprinting or retina scan.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @02:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @02:54AM (#137753)

    Does anyone still live under the illusion that the US isn't just an oligarchic police state?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:14AM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:14AM (#137756) Journal

      Welcome, to the USA - world's largest open-air prison. Here's your shopping bag. Why not head to the mall?

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:30AM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:30AM (#137759)

        I prefer to think of us as 'free-range inmates'....

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday January 25 2015, @07:19AM

          by davester666 (155) on Sunday January 25 2015, @07:19AM (#137796)

          Unconvicted criminals living in the community!

        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Sunday January 25 2015, @06:07PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Sunday January 25 2015, @06:07PM (#137934) Journal

          Free range sounds too healthy and implies we are free to roam about. First off we eat the worst foods available; high sugar and animal fats. We can freely roam about but are limited by our wages. Many people make a slave wage that they can barely survive on. They are slaves to both the paycheck(s) and their bills. They can only afford to go between work and home and maybe a little extra for drowning their despair in alcohol and/or drugs on a weekend.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:11AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:11AM (#137828)

      The problem with everybody constantly throwing around the word "oligarchy" is that if you define the term broadly enough, every country on earth with more than 1 citizen is an oligarchy.

      Monarchy? Well, I'm sure the king has at least one or two advisers he listens to, so there's more than one person in charge.
      Representative government? The representatives are a group a lot smaller than the number of citizens.
      Direct democracy? Socialism? Oh right, those don't actually exist anywhere.

      Just say "people in charge I don't like" and stop being pretentious.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:00PM (#138141)

        "Oligarchy" is hipster cool. Users think it makes them sound profound and that their opinion should weigh more than the highschool level of political analysis that it is.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:02AM (#137835)

      Yes.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:15AM

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:15AM (#137757) Homepage Journal

    When I lived in Holland I had the occasion to travel to Poland for a professional conference. I and a few friends got in a car and drove there. I had to cross the so-called Iron Curtain, a ploughed death strip, where the car was examined ot on the way in and the way out. There were towers with snipers, and we were warned that they would shoot if we crossed the death strip at a speed of more than about ten km per hour (I forget the exact number).

    I spent the entire meeting worried that I might have difficulty leaving if they decided that my papers were not in order.

    I now live in Montreal, and I'm not eager to have that kind of experience whenever I visit the US.

    This kind of exit control may well mean that I refrain from visiting unless it is essential. No more cross-border shopping for me. If many of us react this way, it may well hurt the Vermont economy.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:24AM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:24AM (#137768) Journal

      My last Canadian border crossing was, Hi, welcome to Canada, where you going , how long you staying, ok, thanks, have a good trip.
      Coming back it was about the same at US customs. Wanted to know if we purchased any thing.

      But I fail to see why I have to have bio scans to LEAVE the US when they refuse to secure the southern border and just about anyone can walk in.

      US Customs has never cared who was leaving, just who was entering, and the same at Canadian customs. Whats the point here?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cbiltcliffe on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:44AM

        by cbiltcliffe (1659) on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:44AM (#137771)

        If people leave the US, they might realize that the anti-everybodyelse propaganda is exactly that.
        It's like East Germany, only with better cars.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Sunday January 25 2015, @07:22AM

        by davester666 (155) on Sunday January 25 2015, @07:22AM (#137797)

        This is not about knowing who is leaving.

        This is about adding to the fingerprint and retinal scan database with people who generally wouldn't get added the normal way, at the police station.

      • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:49PM

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:49PM (#137916) Homepage Journal

        Actually, once when I was leaving the US, they forced me to get out of my car, as well a everyone else coming through the border in *their* cars, and proceeded to X-ray all the *entire* *vehicles*. It was a huge X-ray machine. It caused a considerable delay, and I still don't understand why they were doing it. Entering Canada after that was a breeze. Just a Hello, going hack home, nothing to declare, Ok, fine.

        I forgot about that one occasion when I posted. Evidently things re already moving in that direction.

    • (Score: 2) by nyder on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:49AM

      by nyder (4525) on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:49AM (#137774)

      Getting out of the USA never used to be a hassle, the Canadian Border Dudes & Dudess would ask you politely what you were planning on doing in Canada, how long you'd be there, and maybe with a laugh if you have an illegal drugs on you. Now coming back always required the USA Border Thugs to pull the car over, and then search it, while physically searching us in the office.

      I guess now since it's pretty obvious that the USA sucks because they are making it harder for people to leave.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:59AM (#137776)

        > Now coming back always required the USA Border Thugs to pull the car over, and then search it, while physically searching us in the office.

        This is a pretty fucked up story of what happened to an NPR journalist and a bunch of people in other cars all coming back from a wedding in Canada:

        My Detainment Story or: How I learned to Stop Feeling Safe in My Own Country and Hate Border Agents
        podcast [onthemedia.org]
        transcript [onthemedia.org]

        Since she's a reporter the story is more than just what happened to her, it is her investigation into what happens to many people. Including, for example, a 4 year old girl who was detained for 14 hours without access to her parents.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:14AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:14AM (#137837) Journal

        I once spent several hours at a border crossing trying to get back into the US. Eventually, it came to light that they thought my Zip code on driver's license was fake. See, about two or three years earlier, the post office had added a postal code to my area and I was in it. Somehow however, in the years following the change, that information never made it into the Border Patrol computer system and so I obviously had a fake license.

        I'd love to go to Canada more, but coming back is such a hassle.

        • (Score: 1) by MuadDib on Monday January 26 2015, @08:29AM

          by MuadDib (4439) on Monday January 26 2015, @08:29AM (#138111)

          They'd be really good at Papers, Please!

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by SuperCharlie on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:08AM

    by SuperCharlie (2939) on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:08AM (#137766)

    Ive come to understand that whatever a bill is named, it's intent and purpose usually doesn't do exactly that.

    • (Score: 1) by theronb on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:44AM

      by theronb (2596) on Sunday January 25 2015, @04:44AM (#137772)

      How about requiring a cheek swab while we're at it? In trying to understand any bill it is usually enlightening to ask who will benefit financially. Obviously, this would throw tons (more) money to government contractors who already have the ear of key members of Congress. It will, of course, also strengthen entrenched TLS security bureaucracies but the real point is the dollars to corporations pipeline, as with recent wars.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @05:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @05:47AM (#137785)

      Yep, just like the "Affordable Care Act".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:20AM (#137818)

        You forgot to name Obama as an ebil socialist who's stealing all your rights so the commies can take power.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:10AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:10AM (#137836) Journal

          Don't be a fucking DNCtard. Everyone knows that Obama is exactly like Nixon, except with better features. Seriously, Obama brought us Nixon's health care plan, tons of war, surveillance on a scale that would have Nixon creaming his pants 24/7 for about 3 weeks running, more whistleblower prosecutions than all other presidents combined, huge Wall Street bailouts -- seriously, if Obama is the face of modern communism, Jeffry Dahmer is the face of modern veganism.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:17PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:17PM (#138144)

            The Wall Street bailouts started with Bush (it was Bush whose signature is on the TARP bill), and they were supported by any economist with half a clue. It should have been followed with wholesale reform of the banking industry, but Congress (or at least the "R" part, by a party line vote [harvard.edu]) made sure that nothing more than window dressing was done. Obama hasn't brought "tons of war", and in fact the wind-down in Iraq was done on his timeline to much criticism from the right as being too hasty.

            LOL. Now it's Nixon's health care plan? It is funny when Romney was running, it was the successful Romney/Massachusetts plan. Now that Obama has implemented something like it, you need to demonize it by finding an "evil" name to attach to it.

            You REALLY need to expand your exposure as to where you get your news. Just because pundits sing the same song over and over, it doesn't magically change history. (Time-transport Goebbels to today and I guarantee he'd have a popular show on a particular cable network).

          • (Score: 2) by naubol on Monday January 26 2015, @03:40PM

            by naubol (1918) on Monday January 26 2015, @03:40PM (#138188)

            He's not *exactly* like Nixon. But both presidents are far far closer to the center than either party would credit. And, Obama is black, surely a sign of the apocalypse.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:16AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:16AM (#137831)

      And whenever someone uses the reason "you must be patriotic" it means they don't have any logical reason for you to support it.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @05:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @05:02AM (#137777)

    ...if the back room lobbyists snuck through a debt ceiling increase into this bill

    i'm not sure if that would be legal, but it's not like congress follow its own laws anyway

    none of them even read the bills

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:13AM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:13AM (#137830)

      Because it would be better to shut down the government again?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:20AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday January 25 2015, @11:20AM (#137838) Journal

        What exactly would be all that bad? Sure, there'd be fewer random innocent ^w enemy combatants murdered ^w casualties around the world, but it's my local taxes that pay for most of the good stuff I have access to (roads, utilities, etc.). Plus, with all the money I'd save not propping up failed businesses on Wall Street or the NSA or random war, all that stuff I like would be that much better -- hell, the city could pay _me_ to use the water supply and still have a massive surplus.

        So yeah, let the Feds get shut down. I'm not one of the uber-rich the Feds support anyway.

        • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday January 25 2015, @01:28PM

          by Gravis (4596) on Sunday January 25 2015, @01:28PM (#137868)

          What exactly would be all that bad?

          what you aren't realizing is that the federal government is a LOT more than just executive branch and when they shut down the federal government, they shut down all services. need food stamps? sorry, government is closed. this happened to my friend the last time they shut it down.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @12:31PM (#138147)

            Haha. That's funny. Food stamps? Our fine political philosopher here doesn't give a fuck about food stamps. Look at his dipshit answers. He blames the TARP bill on Obama! Just let him be content being scared of the political boogeymen that the TV and radio tells him to be scared about, and let him happily go along and voting for policies that ultimately fuck him over. He probably is blissfully unaware that the Feds subsidize most of the "red" states at the expense of the "blue" states. Those red states get back more money than they pay into with taxes. Ooooh, almost sounds like socialism! Let's cut off money to the Welfare Queen so that she'll stop living off the backs of us hard-working Americans, but when some selfish asshole in Nevada wants to graze his flock for free on Federal land (the land that is supported by us hard-working Americans), lets make a folk hero out of him.

            The amazing thing isn't how blindingly ignorant people like this are, the amazing thing is how proud they are of their ignorance. Waive your stupid flag proud, it is a badge of honor for some it seems.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @01:02PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 26 2015, @01:02PM (#138156)

              BTW, there are no well-fare Queens, it was a made up story by Regan to sell to stupid people, (aka the poor), just like joe-the-plumber.

              Well, Joe existed, but his story was a book of lies.

              Both served the same purpose though, to redirect anger about wealth inequality from the rich to the poorest of the poor.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @02:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @02:51PM (#137879)

          What exactly would be all that bad?

          Well, except for forcing thousands or millions of people to be unemployed, shutting down the military, and shutting down many critical functions that people depend on, I suppose it wouldn't be that bad. Though how do you suppose we make sure those employed by the federal government, including contractors and soldiers in all branches, don't starve? "Fuck them!", "Who cares?", or "Not my problem."? Such a predictably selfish response.

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:00PM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:00PM (#137988) Journal

            If all of the tax money sent to the US Federal Government was used locally, those problems wouldn't exist -- how much do you think actually comes back to ordinary citizens from what is sent to DC? 20%? Wall Street robs us up front, and from behind through tax subsidies, and we're supposed to be grateful for the crumbs left. The military industrial complex pays some salaries for massive subsidies of a few at the top, and we're supposed to grip our ankles because we are allowed to get just a tiny bit back. We would all be individually better off, even those on food stamps, if the money sent to the Feds was not, and the programs that benefit regular people were dealt with locally.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @10:13PM (#138018)

              If all the tax money sent to the federal government were used locally, most of the states would be in trouble the same way that the European periphery is in trouble. Federal taxes are a silent redistribution mechanism to shuffle wealth from the few profitable states to the many unprofitable ones, keeping the Union united. Think "Grexit" is an ugly word? Try "Alabamexit." Every time you see some new story about money being funneled to pork projects or NASA being forced to manufacture parts in bizarre locations or agricultural subsidies making no sense, realize that it's why there isn't a raft of economically-motivated secession attempts by states that have no hope of fiscal or structural reform seeking instead to develop independent monetary policies to balance their budgets.

            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday January 26 2015, @02:14AM

              by Reziac (2489) on Monday January 26 2015, @02:14AM (#138057) Homepage

              Last time I saw stats, the return from D.C. was about 30%. So out of every three tax dollars that go to D.C., only one dollar comes back to you and your state. So you're not too far off, and given the state of bureaucracy, it'll only get worse.

              And yes, I did have the thought that if we just kept those dollars here in my state, we wouldn't *need* any subsidies from D.C. (in fact we'd come out a little ahead).

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @07:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @07:53AM (#137799)

    Please state a sufficiently patriotic reason for - temporarily! - leaving the country.

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday January 26 2015, @02:15AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Monday January 26 2015, @02:15AM (#138058) Homepage

      So I can come back??

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @09:28AM (#137820)

    Papers please.

    Earlier today, I was thinking about the Hunt for Red October, where the soviet XO was amazed that you could drive from state to state, no papers required.

    For how much longer?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @01:18PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @01:18PM (#137862)

      But you might be an illegal Mexican or Mooslim terrist!!!

      • (Score: 2) by EQ on Sunday January 25 2015, @06:32PM

        by EQ (1716) on Sunday January 25 2015, @06:32PM (#137942)

        The problem is, these are EXIT criteria, not entrance. They might make sense for entrance screening if you are trying to slow illegals or stop terrorists from getting in easily. This thing is set up completely backwards if it were actually about US border security. In general, the places that control/prevent people from leaving when they want to are dictatorships (c.f. North Korea) and jails. Let that sink in for a bit and consider what the government is apparently preparing for.

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday January 26 2015, @02:20AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Monday January 26 2015, @02:20AM (#138059) Homepage

          In the old Soviet Union, you were free to leave... so long as you paid the exit tax. Back in the 1960s, the tax was around a million dollars, and that was in 1960s money. Naturally this served quite well to prevent average people from leaving.

          Some twit in California proposed an exit tax for anyone worth over a certain amount -- I vaguely recall the proposed tax was 50%. This made it as far as the Sec'y of State's office but didn't qualify beyond that.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 25 2015, @03:57PM (#137904)