Post: #1

Quote:People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both

- Going strong’s current signature

Fifteen years ago, nobody would get fingerprinted except criminals. But after 9/11 2001, governments went apeshit on security issues, which lead to mass surveillance and biometric passports.

It seems to me that the more security measurements are imposed on people, the more terrorist attacks we encounter. But that’s not the point in this thread. The point is a disturbing trend – governments fingerprinting all arriving or departing passengers.

Nothing says “we’re a declining society and we suspect everyone being a terrorist” in a better way than mass-collecting biometric data.

I was always fascinated by Japan and its culture, sports cars, and language. I always wanted to go there, eat Sushi and bang the local women. But then I read Japan is introducing mandatory fingerprinting for everyone, and it died. My wish to go there is at zero now. I visited Hong Kong instead and had a blast.

I’m not going to commit crimes in a country. I won’t organise a coup d’etat. And sure as hell I won’t live off their welfare, so why do some countries treat their visitors that bad?

It's not easy to find reliable information on the internet on which countries do collect biometric data and which don't, so I start this thread. Did you find incorrect or missing data? Report it here.


Asia: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Japan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea
Africa: Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda
Americas: Argentina, United States

Disclaimer: This map shows which countries do fingerprint all arriving or departing passengers from the west. It does not apply to most African and Asian citizens who need a biometric visa for entering Schengen zone.

Much more people die because of police brutality or road fatalities than terrorist attacks. But with every assault, more and more countries introduce bad habits such as collecting biometric data. I predict that this becomes the norm in 10 or 20 years, but for now everyone has the possibility not to visit countries that violate ones privacy.

- Selembao

Post: #2

its done on a reciprocal basis.. hence its spreading world wide.

Post: #3

I had to give my fingerprints when I crossed the border from Thailand to Malaysia by train. Also had to give fingerprints when extending my 30 day tourist visa in Indonesia.

Post: #4

What? Hong Kong has Finger printing as well. I had to do that for the past 2 years that I visited.

Post: #5

First, I 100% agree with you about the spreading of fingerprinting- I don't like it at all.

I value my privacy. My car is registered to an anonymous New Mexico LLC. My name and the address of where I sleep at night are not together on any document or database. All my mail goes to a PO Box, and the PO Box has an old address for me on file. I pick up UPS/FedEx packages at their sorting facilities or have them sent to a friends office that's next to my condo building. My drivers license address is a relatives address. My cellphone is a prepaid plan, bought with cash, and they don't have any personal info. I could go on.

Saying that, border security is not such a simple issue. There are genuine concerns, genuine threats out there, groups that would love for countries to do away with border security measures.

(04-08-2016 01:30 PM)Selembao Wrote:  It seems to me that the more security measurements are imposed on people, the more terrorist attacks we encounter.

This is just incorrect, faulty logic which the facts don't support. What are the examples where security measures have lead to increasing terrorist attacks?

What you're likely doing is seeing how terrorism is increasing/more visible, while also seeing an increase in security (response) and then concluding that the security is causing the terrorism.

It's just a plainly backwards correlation, but sounds good to people that don't apply the slightest scrutiny to it.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of situations where more (perceived) "security" is actually a detriment to true security- Gun Free Zones, for example. They do nothing to prevent crime, and they do prevent the ability of lawfully armed citizens to defend oneself.

But that is not comparable to say, screening visitor names against a database or checking for explosives etc- Not doing those things will not increase security, and will lead to bad results.

Quote:I was always fascinated by Japan and its culture, sports cars, and language. I always wanted to go there, eat Sushi and bang the local women. But then I read Japan is introducing mandatory fingerprinting for everyone, and it died.

I urge you to reconsider- Japan is simply an amazing country, there is no alternative country to it.

Quote:so why do some countries treat their visitors that bad?

They aren't trying to treat you "bad", they just value the security of the nations citizens more- as any country should in my opinion. Visitors are great for a country, but they are not more important than national security.

I've been traveling regularly for 13 years now, and I'd love as much as anyone if I could just turn up at a border and not have to do anything, not be given a time limit, not be scrutinized.

But as I get older I realize more and more that it's just not realistic, and wouldn't be a good idea anyway.

Countries need borders, they need to know who's coming in, they need to be able to determine who shouldn't be coming in.

I'm no threat (besides sexing up a few local ladies ), and you're no threat either I'm sure- but there are people who do want to enter countries to do harm. There are people who should not be allowed in. And the only way to determine which ones is to know who they are.

Post: #6

(04-08-2016 01:30 PM)Selembao Wrote:  It seems to me that the more security measurements are imposed on people, the more terrorist attacks we encounter. But that’s not the point in this thread.

This is such poor logical thinking.

Post: #7

I didn't mean my statement in the sense that more security brings more terrorism. Of course it's the other way round - attacks result in tighter security, but those security measures didn't (and won't) stop criminals and terrorists. Sorry for the misapprehension.

(04-08-2016 05:07 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 01:30 PM)Selembao Wrote:  It seems to me that the more security measurements are imposed on people, the more terrorist attacks we encounter. But that’s not the point in this thread.

This is such poor logical thinking.

Post: #8

(04-08-2016 05:32 PM)Selembao Wrote:  I didn't mean my statement in the sense that more security brings more terrorism. Of course it's the other way round - attacks result in tighter security, but those security measures didn't (and won't) stop criminals and terrorists. Sorry for the misapprehension.

Thing is, "those security measures" didn't (and won't) stop all criminals and terrorists, but, they will make life harder on them, and will indeed stop some criminals...

But yes, at the same time, fingerprinting is a huge lack of respect for tourists, and a serious breach of privacy, for us normal citizens.

Post: #9

What do they do about Terrorist that grow up in the country and have no criminal record?
What do they do about well known Terrorist but don't keep an eye on them?
What do they do about people that set on a warning list but can travel free from one country to another or even hide?
And then they tell, more data of ordinary citizens help? Even after the Paris and Belgium attacks, those terrorist had be known, had be in their data pool but the system did fail? Why do they talk all the time after every attack, to tighten security for citizens but the real terrorist can almost walk free?

I can get the point where they say, they can identify you more easy later, can track what you did and how. But the terror attacks show, even this don't let the police work good.
When I see the open border politics now, how criminals and terrorist enter Germany, how some apply multiple times to get more money, then there need to be a control. But it will not prevent everything. Not when there are terrorist with no record, not when information is not shared, not when its just used to spy on citizens.

Post: #10

Wow, I would never have expected to see such a thread started by an American (but then again, of course it's the government introducing these measures). Good to see that guys like you are still out there and actually questioning this! This is the main reason why I will never visit or transit the US. Selembao, where did you get your information from? It seems hard to collect an accurate set of data for this matter. The image contradicts with your listed countries, for some reason the UAE and Oman are highlighted red, as well as Iraq (?) - but not Saudi Arabia. Iran only fingerprints American citizens.

By the way, good that you've been to Singapore already as they will introduce fingerprinting from June. I always wanted to go there, but well...there's still Hong Kong.

Unfortunately this does become more and more popular despite the proven ease of faking fingerprints. But I keep it as you do, as long as there's many nice places to go to, why go to the ones which want to track and suspect you upon arrival? I might change my opinion in the future because just like you, I'd absolutely love to travel to Japan (and Ethiopia).

(04-08-2016 03:50 PM)Stickman Wrote:  What? Hong Kong has Finger printing as well. I had to do that for the past 2 years that I visited.

Only if you use the automated gates - if you're lining up for the manned immigration counters, you don't have to do anything besides showing your passport.

Post: #11

(04-08-2016 03:53 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I value my privacy. My car is registered to an anonymous New Mexico LLC. My name and the address of where I sleep at night are not together on any document or database. All my mail goes to a PO Box, and the PO Box has an old address for me on file. I pick up UPS/FedEx packages at their sorting facilities or have them sent to a friends office that's next to my condo building. My drivers license address is a relatives address. My cellphone is a prepaid plan, bought with cash, and they don't have any personal info. I could go on.

GM Can you explain why you go to such great lengths doing this ?

Personal reasons or just proactive in your privacy ? I'm curious.

Post: #12

Quaestum, it's difficult to find good information on that topic. The best I got was from Wikipedia (Link here).
Indeed, seems Singapore will introduce fingerprinting soon, sadly. Somehow I liked SG, the girls were surprisingly easy and down to earth (granted, not the prettiest, but still)...

Post: #13

(04-08-2016 06:37 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 03:53 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I value my privacy. My car is registered to an anonymous New Mexico LLC. My name and the address of where I sleep at night are not together on any document or database. All my mail goes to a PO Box, and the PO Box has an old address for me on file. I pick up UPS/FedEx packages at their sorting facilities or have them sent to a friends office that's next to my condo building. My drivers license address is a relatives address. My cellphone is a prepaid plan, bought with cash, and they don't have any personal info. I could go on.

GM Can you explain why you go to such great lengths doing this ?

Personal reasons or just proactive in your privacy ? I'm curious.

Kaotic, that is a great question. As I started to reply I realized it would be much better as its own thread, as there is quite a bit of detail.

I'm writing the sheet up now and will probably post it by Monday night.

Post: #14

I don't see it as a huge invasion of my privacy because I'm already required to present my passport at the places where my fingerprints are scanned.

IMO, you haven't really lost anything unless you use fake IDs to obfuscate your travel history. EU passport applicants have been required to submit fingerprints for about five years already. As I understand, Americans don't yet have to submit fingerprint scans when obtaining passports, but that can't be too far away. So at the moment the government doesn't have them, but they probably will within the next decade.

I'm more concerned about:
- mass collection of internet and cell metadata
- surveillance cameras everywhere, making it possible to track one's movements by using facial and licence plate recognition
- tracking of finances (credit cards, cheques and bank wires)
- restrictions on the movement and use of cash

Post: #15

(04-08-2016 06:33 PM)Quaestum Wrote:  By the way, good that you've been to Singapore already as they will introduce fingerprinting from June. I always wanted to go there, but well...there's still Hong Kong.

Unfortunately this does become more and more popular despite the proven ease of faking fingerprints. But I keep it as you do, as long as there's many nice places to go to, why go to the ones which want to track and suspect you upon arrival? I might change my opinion in the future because just like you, I'd absolutely love to travel to Japan (and Ethiopia).

If you travel on a German passport, your passport chip already contains scans of your fingerprints which the border guards can download and store.* The only way around it at this stage is to take a hammer to your passport chip and then expect a lot of delays at passport control.

* fingerprint scans are protected by what is called "extended access control" (I.e. the information is encrypted), but every relatively advanced country has the keys required to download them. That includes all of the EU, US, Canada, HK, Malaysia, Japan, etc.

Post: #16

(04-09-2016 06:00 AM)DaveR Wrote:  If you travel on a German passport, your passport chip already contains scans of your fingerprints which the border guards can download and store.* The only way around it at this stage is to take a hammer to your passport chip and then expect a lot of delays at passport control.

All the countries that require fingerprints on arrival still make visitors give their fingerprints again at border control anyway, regardless on whats stored on the passport chip, so the German government's justification for taking this personal data from all their citizens and saving it on the passport chip is total bullshit.


You can use the hammer, just never, EVER admit to anyone that you did it, as it's highly illegal to tamper with a passport.
Many chips fail on their own anyway.

Failure of the chip does not mean your passport is invalid, and you cannot be denied entry becuase of a non working chip.

Post: #17

Meh, I had to get my finger prints scanned for a job at city hall I worked part time for over a summer. I also had to give my finger prints for my UK border card. I have to give a thumb print each time I enter the UK.

Cost of doing business, at this point i'm more interested in dissolving my prints or wearing leather gloves to not leave one.

Post: #18

(04-09-2016 06:59 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  All the countries that require fingerprints on arrival still make visitors give their fingerprints again at border control anyway, regardless on whats stored on the passport chip, so the German government's justification for taking this personal data from all their citizens and saving it on the passport chip is total bullshit.

The idea is to compare the person's actual fingerprint to what's stored on the chip to prevent fraud. The data on the chip is cryptographically signed so they can ensure that it really did come from the German government.

And my point is that it's illogical to avoid countries that scan fingerprints at the border, because the ones that don't can download scans from the chip anyway (and they probably do).

(04-09-2016 06:59 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  You can use the hammer, just never, EVER admit to anyone that you did it, as it's illegal to tamper with a passport.
Many chips fail on their own anyway.

Failure of the chip does not mean your passport is invalid, and you cannot be denied entry becuase of a non working chip.

You are correct - it's illegal to intentionally damage a passport. I should have pointed that out. In any case, I wouldn't recommend it because you'll probably be held up at airports while the border guards investigate the document and maybe contact the issuing country to verify it.

Post: #19

DaveR - You are right, this possibility always exists. Yet they need RFID equipment to do it and I'm half-confident that this doesn't happen in countries which don't take fingerprints - well, let's rather say I can't think of any reason foreign countries would secretly download and store EU citizen's fingerprints but at the same time be "comfortable" not to get them from US/Canada/Australia/NZ/UK passport holders to stay with Western countries. As retaliation for biometric visa requirements for their own citizens when travelling to Schengen member countries? Maybe, if that's the case I would condemn it but there's nothing I could have done since I wasn't aware of it. And in the end, the alternative is not to travel, which is no solution. You can only do so much to protect your privacy.

Additionally I use an RFID-blocking cover for my passport, so at least I know this shouldn't happen in Europe as immigration will usually just briefly open it and give it back without scanning it or something similar. There's also a way to destroy the chip without damaging the passport but this alley can get one in serious legal trouble so I won't go for it. What I will try though is getting a EU passport without fingerprints - it is possible and my current one is due for renewal in a few years.

(04-09-2016 05:30 AM)DaveR Wrote:  I don't see it as a huge invasion of my privacy because I'm already required to present my passport at the places where my fingerprints are scanned.

But your passport doesn't allow you to be tracked and there is not as much margin for misuse. People always say "Oh, so what are they going to do with your fingerprints now?" They might not do anything with it, never. But with the world going more and more digital, biometrics being on the rise, there will be a time when your fingerprint unlocks things or proves you have been to a particular place, and let's not forget cyber crime is becoming bigger and stronger. Your online shopping account is hacked? A disaster, but from your end you can choose a new, better password and continue as you used to later on. You can't change your fingerprints once they have been misused. And there will be misused fingerprints, sooner or later.

DaveR Wrote:I'm more concerned about:
- mass collection of internet and cell metadata
- surveillance cameras everywhere, making it possible to track one's movements by using facial and licence plate recognition
- tracking of finances (credit cards, cheques and bank wires)
- restrictions on the movement and use of cash

That is equally worrisome, no doubt. I remember my second school trip to the UK many years back and nobody of our class could understand why there were cameras everywhere. Even in tiny villages. There's no real solution to that problem - either you go or you don't. I guess in the end you don't really have a choice unless you stay in a mountain cottage and never leave it. What has happened...

Post: #20

(04-09-2016 07:08 AM)DaveR Wrote:  The idea is to compare the person's actual fingerprint to what's stored on the chip to prevent fraud. The data on the chip is cryptographically signed so they can ensure that it really did come from the German government.

And my point is that it's illogical to avoid countries that scan fingerprints at the border, because the ones that don't can download scans from the chip anyway (and they probably do).

Perhaps...but most countries dont require their citizens to give fingerprints when obtaining a passport and store them on a chip.
As far as I know, only Schengen countries are doing this to their citizens. No country ever said to the Europeans - "Fingerprint your citizens if you want them to be able to visit visa free". This is just the bullshit rumour they sold the public to ram these fascist measures into place.

(04-09-2016 07:08 AM)DaveR Wrote:  You are correct - it's illegal to intentionally damage a passport. I should have pointed that out. In any case, I wouldn't recommend it because you'll probably be held up at airports while the border guards investigate the document and maybe contact the issuing country to verify it.

The only way to know real stats on this is to hear it from people who travel with non working chips....and that would mean admitting something illegal if it was you who tampered with it. So, i don't think we'll ever know for sure.

Post: #21

(04-09-2016 07:21 AM)Quaestum Wrote:  DaveR - You are right, this possibility always exists. Yet they need RFID equipment to do it and I'm half-confident that this doesn't happen in countries which don't take fingerprints - well, let's rather say I can't think of any reason foreign countries would secretly download and store EU citizen's fingerprints but at the same time be "comfortable" not to get them from US/Canada/Australia/NZ/UK passport holders to stay with Western countries. As retaliation for biometric visa requirements for their own citizens when travelling to Schengen member countries? Maybe, if that's the case I would condemn it but there's nothing I could have done since I wasn't aware of it. And in the end, the alternative is not to travel, which is no solution. You can only do so much to protect your privacy.

I know for sure that Russian border guards download and store everything accessible on those chips. All previous downloads are available on their screens for inspection. They also take their own scan of the passport data page each time as well, and the printed image is compared to what's on the chip itself.

RFID readers are very cheap - you can obtain them for under $20 these days. Most Android phones have them built in, and you can download free apps to read what is openly accessible on the chip (fingerprints are encrypted though). The security isn't in the reader itself, but rather in the software and keys that are used to decrypt the data.

(04-09-2016 07:21 AM)Quaestum Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:30 AM)DaveR Wrote:  I don't see it as a huge invasion of my privacy because I'm already required to present my passport at the places where my fingerprints are scanned.

But your passport doesn't allow you to be tracked and there is not as much margin for misuse. People always say "Oh, so what are they going to do with your fingerprints now?" They might not do anything with it, never. But with the world going more and more digital, biometrics being on the rise, there will be a time when your fingerprint unlocks things or proves you have been to a particular place, and let's not forget cyber crime is becoming bigger and stronger. Your online shopping account is hacked? A disaster, but from your end you can choose a new, better password and continue as you used to later on. You can't change your fingerprints once they have been misused. And there will be misused fingerprints, sooner or later.

The data on your passport does allow you to be tracked. It contains a copy of your photo (ref: discussion about surveillance cameras).

I think companies already realise that fingerprints are not secure identifiers. For example, they can only be used to unlock an iPhone temporarily. You'll still need to enter a password after a reset or after not using the fingerprint unlock for a few hours. Changing some settings always requires passwords.

(04-09-2016 07:21 AM)Quaestum Wrote:  I remember my second school trip to the UK many years back and nobody of our class could understand why there were cameras everywhere. Even in tiny villages. There's no real solution to that problem - either you go or you don't. I guess in the end you don't really have a choice unless you stay in a mountain cottage and never leave it. What has happened...

Wear tinted glasses...

Post: #22

(04-09-2016 07:25 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Perhaps...but most countries dont require their citizens to give fingerprints when obtaining a passport and store them on a chip.
As far as I know, only Schengen countries are doing this to their citizens. No country ever said to the Europeans - "Fingerprint your citizens if you want them to be able to visit visa free". This is just the bullshit rumour they sold the public to ram these fascist measures into place.

"The United States records all fingerprints and a picture of foreign airline passengers visiting the U.S. (excepting Canadians), keeping it in databases for seventy-five years. It is suggested that such information should be shared among the U.S. and other countries that have similar systems." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_...ted_States


To be honest, I don't get the fascism argument. There is a legitimate need to verify that the person holding the passport is the person to whom it belongs. Fascism, to me, is mass surveillance of communications, requiring ID to obtain internet access and SIM cards, currency reporting requirements, etc.

I don't know what the level of video surveillance is in the US these days, but taking the UK as an example: every inch of every city is covered by surveillance cameras from multiple angles. Fingerprints are not needed... the Police can look up their video footage and follow the perp back to his car or whichever business he visited before the event. From there, they'll either check his licence plate or VISA/MasterCard records to find his name. Don't forget that just about everyone also walks around with a personal tracking device these days, commonly referred to as a cell phone - do you?

Post: #23

(04-09-2016 08:04 AM)DaveR Wrote:  I know for sure that Russian border guards download and store everything accessible on those chips. All previous downloads are available on their screens for inspection. They also take their own scan of the passport data page each time as well, and the printed image is compared to what's on the chip itself.

That is interesting, thanks for sharing. They're probably not the only ones then. If I do manage to get my next passport without fingerprints, I might be in for an exciting time at Russia's border...I'll report back if I remember this thread in the future!

DaveR Wrote:The data on your passport does allow you to be tracked. It contains a copy of your photo (ref: discussion about surveillance cameras).

Fair enough; but they can't produce fake evidence proving that you've been somewhere using your passport. Okay, I'm not sure what's possible using biometric ID photos, but of course I'm fully aware that this falls under "extreme paranoia" and most people are simply not important enough to justify such hypothetical scenarios. It's easier though with fingerprints.

DaveR Wrote:I think companies already realise that fingerprints are not secure identifiers. For example, they can only be used to unlock an iPhone temporarily. You'll still need to enter a password after a reset or after not using the fingerprint unlock for a few hours. Changing some settings always requires passwords.

If that would be the case, there wouldn't be more and more places using fingerprinting technologies for identification purposes. The local gym for example requires your fingerprint if you intend to use the facilities after hours (access cards would have been too expensive, eh?).

Post: #24

Russia, Korea, and China need to be added to OPs original list.

Post: #25

Passports are great and all, but in Texas you have to give up your fingerprints (both thumbs) I believe for a drivers license. The first time I got a driver's license (I was quite a bit younger, and privacy conscious even then) I considered saying no, and not getting a license. But it's basically impossible to exist without one in the US. And not to mention, if they arrest you for driving without one, they're going to take your finger prints, your photo and name are gonna end up all over the internet, and on top of it, they're going to take your DNA (this practice is becoming pretty common now).

My question would be, are some countries able to take dna from visitors?