Cancer Patient Held At Airport For Missing Fingerprints 323
A 62-year-old man visiting his relatives in the US was held for four hours by immigration officials after they could not detect his fingerprints because of a cancer drug he was taking. The man was prescribed capecitabine, a drug used to treat cancers in the head, neck, breast, and stomach. Some of the drug's side-effects include chronic inflammation of the palms or soles of the feet, which can cause the skin to peel or bleed. "This can give rise to eradication of fingerprints with time," explained Tan Eng Huat, senior consultant in the medical oncology department at Singapore's National Cancer Center. "Theoretically, if you stop the drug, it will grow back, but details are scanty. No one knows the frequency of this occurrence among patients taking this drug and nobody knows how long a person must be on this drug before the loss of fingerprints," he added.
The scariest words in the English language (Score:5, Insightful)
just doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
Best country in the world (Score:2, Insightful)
I always feel so welcome entering the US :)
Seriously though, how often do border guards ever catch anyone? All that frisking and undressing and do they EVER catch anyone? I feel certain that if they ever did, it would be all over the media. As evidenced here, this pointless pompous nonsense reaches the pinacle of its expression on the way into the US.
Re:Best country in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pacificnw/2001/1125/cover.html [nwsource.com]
An alert border guard caught a guy trying to get across the border with a bunch of bomb stuff. This case with the finger prints doesn't sound like a case of anybody being "alert" - but for my money, training people to detect and investigate is far better than the ridiculous security theater we usually see - taking off shoes and having jars of plum jam confiscated.
4 hours? (Score:3, Insightful)
How stupid can you be if such a specific case takes 4 hours?
DHS senior personnel thinks that they NEED fingerprints to let someone enter? [fascist state proof #1]
DHS is unsure if they can send him back because there are no prints.
[cluelessness proof #1] Etc.
Of course the man didn't tell them he was taking medicine etc.
4 hours (Score:1, Insightful)
That's 4 hours of his life he will never get back, and that's saying something for a cancer patient.
Re:just doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
What if they find out he's on cancer drugs because he's some sort of commie biochem guy and is now sick from that. He's dying and wants to do damage to America. He blows up a school. Oh, well, after a few years they'll find he wasn't printed coming into the country. Parents of kids killed sue because protocol wasn't followed, allowing a dangerous wanted person in the country, just because he was sick.
Sickness does not beget special treatment. A plan B should be in place for this sort of thing.
Re:Can't be the first (Score:3, Insightful)
probably a wheelchair
Well yeah. and the wheelchair doesn't go through x-ray nor does the person in it, plus you don't queue for security -- probably the quickest/easiest way to get airside short of wearing a police uniform.
This is utterly non-news! (Score:2, Insightful)
From a medical and oncological perspective, this is very interesting stuff.
From a DHS/security/evil overlord angle, it's absolutely nothing at all.
The guy was screened routinely. He failed the screening for an extraordinary reason, and was kept for four measly hours, until they could parse and process the exception.
That's it. They didn't strip-search him, they didn't tase him, they didn't abuse him or violate his rights. They came across an exception, dealt with it, and moved on.
Or would you rather spend all day making up SHOCKING headlines for articles like, "Police do their job. Bring in suspect for questioning, and then release him after innocence proven."
Re:just doing their job (Score:3, Insightful)
Why think when you can follow protocol?
These are low-wage worker bees. The one thing they know for sure is that they won't get into trouble if they follow protocol. Do you really expect them to think? I'm not saying I like the result, but it's clear to me that if a TSA worker has a choice between your discomfort resulting from following protocol, and his if he breaks protocol and the outcome catches somebody's attention, he'll stick with protocol every time.
Re:just doing their job (Score:3, Insightful)
Sickness does not beget special treatment.
I'll remember that the next time I see a handicapped placard on a car.
Re:Can't be the first (Score:4, Insightful)
And here, ladies and gentleman, is a person that's NEVER done a fish fry or turkey deep fry.
Here sir, let me put your fingers NEAR this FOUR HUNDRED DEGREE HOT OIL.
Sorry if you get any spatters on yourself or if you burn yourself touching the frying basket where you shouldn't.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:4, Insightful)
We're from the government, and we're here to help you!
Uh, what's that got to do with anything? When would that have been said during this exchange? I mean, customs officials don't say "we're from the government" and they DEFINITELY don't say "We're here to help you."
Re:Cancer Patient might be an alien... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:just doing their job (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't mind waiting for weather, which no one can control. I do mind waiting for security theatrics, which the government can control.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The scariest words in the English language are "I'm just doing my job." That doesn't sound so good in German either.
Besides, immigration officials aren't there to help anyone. Just ask the tourists who don't come to the US anymore.
Re:just doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not do both? Protocol is: get fingerprint. If you cannot get a fingerprint, then you should use your discretion and initiative, e.g.:
- carefully and thoroughly interview the visitor.
- understand and verify the person's reason for not having a fingerprint.
- understand why the person is visiting the country.
- determine whether this person is likely to be a risk or not.
- decide if the person should be allowed into the country despite the lack of fingerprints.
If the border guards didn't want to think, they would have just deported him right away. They were willing to think. They did think. They interviewed him, thought about what he said,possibly spent some time verifying what he said, maybe consulted other people, and in the end they decided he was an acceptable risk. The process took 4 hours. It seems reasonable to me.
I think this shows a system working perfectly. The normal case (over 99% of the time, I would guess) is a few seconds for a fingerprint. The exceptions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with a thorough interview and careful consideration (not a stupid snap judgment).
Re:just doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
When government officials detain you for whatever they want, and nobody thinks its a big deal, then truly, the terrorists have won.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:4, Insightful)
What... you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security? Wow. Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...
Re:This is utterly non-news! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The guy was screened routinely. "
THAT'S the problem.
Re:just doing their job (Score:2, Insightful)
for a cancer patient, four hours wasted is a huge deal.
Re:just doing their job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:3, Insightful)
What... you'd rather the US government got out of the business of border security? Wow. Even the craziest right-wing loonies admit that the government's job is to protect the borders...
We have border security? Could have fooled me.....
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, why do they insist on fingerprints to identify someone?
Sure, they might want to know if the person they are holding already has a record.
If not, though, then certainly they are creating a new record, right?
So, gather retinal scans, voice prints, DNA samples, whatever.
Those will suffice if captured after doing something in the future.
Every international airport would have to
And the billions of dollars to implement it.
All for a tiny percentage of the population.
Not to mention the HOWLS OF RAGE from privacy groups, the ACLU, the EU, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Instead of knee-jerk reacting about how stupid the US government is, think about what you just wrote.
Re:just doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
What if
What if you trip and fall on a sharp corner and poke your eye out? We should ban sharp corners! What if you trip and fall and hit your head on a wall? We should pad all our walls. Or better yet, ban walking or moving about of any kind. We should all be bound to soft beds. What if your teenage child is sexually attracted to a classmate? We should ban children.
We could play what if all day, but the point is, you can't keep everyone safe from everything all the time. You have to ask what freedoms are worth giving up for what safeties. I for one would be willing to give up a lot of the "safety" gained from our security theater for the freedom to get on an airplane without taking off my shoes.
On a side note, didn't we used to belittle commie's for being a "show me your papers" kind of state?
Re:Best country in the world (Score:2, Insightful)
25 out of 100 random people will accept an offer of C4 from a stranger? I call BS. If you told me 25/100 people were stupid, I'd believe you. But not *that* stupid.
Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.
Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment. Cf. John Delorean's coke bust. Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.
Re:just doing their job (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all. He gave them the fingerprints that he had. The fact that they were useless to ICE is not his fault.
Re:This is utterly non-news! (Score:2, Insightful)
With no fingerprints this guy will be harassed for the rest of his life, precisely because there is no evidence that can be used against him. Since any criminal would want to blend in, having no fingerprints is in fact "cause" to suspect that he is very innocent.
Re:Technology-determined guilt or innocence (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but my understanding is that refusal laws apply only after an arrest. Refusal to take a roadside breathalyzer does, however, constitute probably cause for arrest. Once you are placed under arrest as a result of either refusing or failing a roadside breathalyzer, you are given an evidentiary test, using with a more reliable machine. Refusing this test is what triggers the refusal laws.
Again, IANAL, but it seems better to always refuse a test if you know you're going to fail. Failure to blow is a civil penalty. A DUI is a criminal conviction that can haunt you for the rest of your life.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government is stupid, but this is just a case of a specific person being stupid (both the official and the poster you replied to).
Fingerprinting everyone who enters your country is only valid when you've already deteriorated civil liberties beyond the point of no return. I don't think turning your country into a police state for the sake of being "safe" is a reasonable scenario. The bottom line is that US foreign policy put the US in its current position, so maybe changing this might ensure safety.
Wars on "terrorism" and clandestine activities involving your secret services aren't exactly on the road to positive foreign policy.
The more the US moves toward this police state (and police the world attitude), the more people will be wrongly detained at airports, boarders, hell, even in other countries. This does not reflect well at all for the US or US citizens.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:3, Insightful)
Fingerprinting everyone who enters your country is ... turning your country into a police state
What kind of brainlessness is this which asserts that "making sure you are who you say you are" == "police state"?????
Re:Best country in the world (Score:3, Insightful)
You miss my point. This was more like a boxing match between someone incapable of defending himself and a heavyweight champion. The champ won - surprise! - and then bragged about it.
Calling these guys terrorists is about as accurate as calling the Keystone Kops "law enforcement officials." Put it this way: the Feds weren't afraid of supplying this material to these guys and letting them loose. If they were potentially a real threat, the Feds would've picked them up well before they even got close to the targets. But they let them go through with their plot, parking the car out front, scaring the bejeezuz out of the neighborhood, etc. Grab your popcorn! We're watching Security Theater!!
I s'pose picking the low-hanging fruit still gets the fruit, but it's nothing to crow about.
Re:just doing their job (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.
More than that, I'm sure there's a natural screening process at work that gets rid of inquisitive people with good heads on their shoulders: the monotony of the job. Looking at people's passports all day has got to be one of the most boring jobs out there. Managing people who look at passports all day and dealing with people who have issues with their passports might be a little more interesting, except with all the paranoia I'm sure they're in a straightjacket and have little power to do anything that someone might think will decrease security.
If you think outside the box, or rather, can think rather than just be a robot, then you're probably going to go crazy and shoot yourself or others if you do it for very long. Or just quit. The ones that left are the ones that are, well, you've seen them if you've ever come through customs.
I guess if we made the pay a lot higher, we could get some better customs agents who could think and who would be able to resolve odd issues like this faster, but that money would come from taxes. And most of us have fingerprints and can pass through customs just fine, and no system is going to be perfect.
Bureaucracies are always very efficient at dealing with things they usually deal with, they're terribly inefficient when dealing with anything out of the ordinary, just like any mindless machine. At least they are as quick as they can be when you do fit neatly into their box.
The lesson here is if you don't have fingerprints and are doing international travel, either contact customs ahead of time or be prepared for a wait.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:5, Insightful)
So photographs are no longer valid?
I suppose we should all burn our passports and submit ourselves to chipping? Fingerprinting is not and never will be a valid form of identifying innocent civilians. The only people in my country that get fingerprinted are people who are charged with a crime, not innocent people entering the country (or, now as a newer article shows, leaving the country).
Gee, that doesn't sound like a police state at all.
What kind of brainlessness is this which asserts that "fingerprinting" == "making sure you are who you say you are"?
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:3, Insightful)
So photographs are no longer valid?
Hair cuts, hair dyes, grow/remove beards, weight gain, colored contact lens, nose jobs, etc, etc.
I suppose we should all burn our passports and submit ourselves to chipping?
I was fingerprinted when applying for my passport.
Fingerprinting is not and never will be a valid form of identifying innocent civilians.
How incredibly shortsighted and naive are you????
Because my fingerprints are on file, if I am ever suspected of a "physical" crime in which the perpetrator left a fingerprint, I would be "unsuspected" (or at least dropped down the list) without even knowing that I were a suspect.
Re:The scariest words in the English language (Score:3, Insightful)
I find the notion of fingerprinting innocents a gross violation of human rights.
Really? A gross violation of human rights is being sold into slavery. It's being denied personhood. It's having your local police force come by and rape your wife. It's being held indefinitely without charge and being subjected to torture. It's having all the children in your entire ethnic group rounded up and sent to boarding schools to be assimilated.
Being fingerprinted is a pointless invasion of privacy, and an inconvenience.