pups писал(а):Хули честному человеку бояться?
Хоть 100 раз готов сдать отпечатки пальцев в любой стране.
The Luddite Argument
[...]
To see the problems with the Luddite argument, let’s look at biometrics. Biometric identification allows people to be identified by their physical characteristics -- fingerprint, eye pattern, voice and so on. The technology has a lot of promise, but there is a problem, one I call the "Titanic phenomenon." The Titanic was thought to be unsinkable, so it lacked adequate lifeboats. If biometric data ever got lost, we could be in a Titanic-like situation -- people’s permanent physical characteristics could be in the hands of criminals, and people could never reclaim their identities. Biometric identification depends on information about people’s characteristics being stored in a database. And we hear case after case of businesses and government agencies that suffer data security breaches.
One virtue of our current clunky system of identification is that if data gets leaked, a person can clean up the mess. If your Social Security number is seized by an identity thief, you can get a new one. For sure, it’s a hassle, but you can restore your identity. But what happens if your eye pattern gets into the hands of an identity thief? You can’t get new eyes. Given the government’s existing track record for data security, I’m not sure I’m ready to risk the government having such critical information about me that could cause such lasting and unfixable harm if lost. This isn’t Luddism -- it’s caution. It is heeding the lessons of the Titanic. Security proponents just focus on the benefits of these technologies, but we also must think about what happens if they fail. This doesn’t mean not adopting the technologies, but it means we should be cautious.
Daniel J. Solove is the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School and the author of the new book, " Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security ," where he discusses these and many other faulty arguments in the privacy-security debate
salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/solove_privacy_security/index.html
zerokol писал(а):а я бы лично предпочел ехать в страну которая берет отпечатки, но не требует визы, чем в страну которая отпечатков не берет, но заставляет получить визу заранее.
Я бы лично предпочёл поехать в страну, где требуют много бумаг на визу, но не берут отпечатки (например, Новая Зеландия), чем в ту, где виза не нужна, но нужно сдавать отпечатки (Малайзия, Израиль).
Единственная проблема тут, что самые важные (по
House495) юрисдикции - шенген, США и UK - ввели или вводят обязательное снятие отпечатков. Но Израиль не представляет такого интереса и поэтому ехать туда уже смысла нет
