PDA

View Full Version : Heathrow fingerprinting - Information Commissioner objects.


Yarpy
23rd Mar 2008, 07:10
The UK Information Commissioner has raised a strong objection to the fingerprinting of passengers by the BAA at Heathrow:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=542373&in_page_id=1770

I should hope so to. Only the police in the UK have the right to take your fingerprints without your consent.

Skipness One Echo
23rd Mar 2008, 13:31
All because the greedy suits at BAA insisted on breaking years of tradition by not separating arriving and departing passengers so they can play shoppers in a bloody mall. Sheer greed thats all it is.

Lost_luggage34
23rd Mar 2008, 16:34
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

As a frequent passenger I can see the huge benefits for this mechanism.

Why should anyone object to having fingerprints taken in order for it to be reconciled at the gate ?

Surely this is an excellent security measure ? It is relatively swift, non-intrusive, the data is encrypted and then destroyed 24 hours later.

I really do not see the problem. I admit I am not fully aware of the layout of T5 as yet. But fingerprinting is already in force in T1 - I don't recall objections when that was introduced.

Personally I feel reassured by the system, not afraid of it.

MAN777
23rd Mar 2008, 17:05
Fine by me, those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

ETOPS
23rd Mar 2008, 17:50
What about disabled pax/amputees ? I can just see the BAA security jobsworths refusing entry to someone unfortunate enough to be missing a digit or worse :eek:

paully
23rd Mar 2008, 18:09
Thin edge of the wedge if its not stopped. Although the data is meant to be destroyed (why keep it 24hrs?) the Police (This Government) can have access to it on demand.......Personally I wouldnt trust Broon and his clowns to tell me the time of day:= and consider this peeps if they do get hold of the data how long before they lose it somewhere:rolleyes: ...I`m with the Data Commissioner on this one...

CorkEICK
23rd Mar 2008, 19:04
Lost_luggage34 - I love your trust in Authority. I have nothing to hide but I certainly have no intention of being fingerprinted. Paully is right about it being the thin end of the wedge etc.

Also I would not trust those incompetants (BAA) to look after a paper bag for me let alone give them my fingerprints! Where will it end....?? Clocking in with your fingerprint every time u move 100 metre etc etc. I for one do not want to live in that kind of world.

hellsbrink
23rd Mar 2008, 23:39
Only the police in the UK have the right to take your fingerprints without your consent

One problem with that. When you buy a ticket you consent to things like this as part of their security measures.

stagger
24th Mar 2008, 00:00
Fingerprinting was selected as the most robust method by BAA

Errr...surely the most robust method would have been not to have an "open terminal" - i.e. to keep domestic and international passengers segregated??

ShyTorque
24th Mar 2008, 01:23
I find the way this country is heading ever more worrying. We seem, little by little, and by stealth and negligence, to be gradually drifting back towards a set of circumstances in another country, not too long back, that occurred prior to civil unrest, a new leader and eventually a world war.

Ever more zealous government, can't move without ID, segregation, personal information disappearing, corruption, terrorism, more restrictions etc. :suspect:

The Nr Fairy
24th Mar 2008, 08:14
"Fingerprinting was selected as the most robust method by BAA" - then check this link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bears_defeat_fingerprint_sensors/).

ORAC
24th Mar 2008, 09:51
Not just fingerprints, it all ties into biometric passports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport), for which ICAO defines the biometric file formats and communication protocols to be used, and is being rolled out just about world-wide.

If you travel through T4 you'll already be familiar with the fast lanes for those taking part in the IRIS fast track experiment.

"The government plans to spend £1.2bn on biometric technology and staff to catch illegal immigrants and others undesirables at UK borders......... The first contract for iris recognition equipment, worth £2.8m, has gone to French defence and security equipment supplier Sagem. Two units will be installed at Heathrow Airport's new Terminal 5, and more may be installed at other entry points, the Home Office said.By the end of 2007 frontline staff at all major ports will be able to check biometric data in travel documents against the passenger presenting the document. it said."

Dan D'air
24th Mar 2008, 09:58
Also I would not trust those incompetants (BAA) to look after a paper bag for me

It's very incompetent not to spell incompetent competently.

BDiONU
24th Mar 2008, 09:58
If you travel through T4 you'll already be familiar with the fast lanes for those taking part in the IRIS fast track experiment.
Been there and done that :) But if iris recognition is so good why not continue down that track instead of fingerprints?

BD

42psi
24th Mar 2008, 10:09
Seems a tad remiss to have actually planned and built a terminal around an intent to use a control method which had not been "approved & cleared" beforehand.....

or was it ... and it's just that the govt. folks who gave the OK forgot that the UK Info. chappy might not take the same view??



As for biometric passports etc ..... if it's only as secure as your ability to ensure the integrity of the issuing process ........... and how long is that likely??

ORAC
24th Mar 2008, 10:27
Don't put the finger on BAA. e-Borders FAQ (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/technology/eborders/faqseborders).

Information will be provided to The Border and Immigration Agency, the police, HM Revenue & Customs, UKvisas and the Security and Intelligence agencies......

Biometric data uses unique physical characteristics to identify an individual. These include fingerprints, DNA, iris patterns and facial recognition. In common with many other countries UK passports will shortly start to include biometric data - this will improve the security of the passport and enable holders to use automated clearance barriers to enter the United Kingdom.......

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 11:49
I just love people who trust our security services to do the right thing. They are only interested in completing their task. If it means stripping you of your individual rights and privacy in favour of the state you can bet on it happening. Your data will reside on a database that you will know nothing about since it will be covered by the official secrets act. BAA will destroy the original copy and look you in the eye while they give you the assurances you seek. You as Joe public will never know who to ask and so you won’t be lied to. :ugh:

For those who seek absolute security from those who would do us harm, might I suggest getting locked up in a maximum security prison…you’ll never have to worry about the bogey man again.

The only reason the governments have to resort to these tactics is because they won’t acknowledge the enemy…so we all have to forgo our human rights and be treated as terrorist in the name of political correctness. :mad:

BDiONU
24th Mar 2008, 11:58
If it means stripping you of your individual rights and privacy <snip> we all have to forgo our human rights
What are these 'rights' you speak of? Where are they written down and what law gives us these 'rights'?

BD

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 12:26
The Human Rights Act 1998

ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Since this is only occurring so that the BAA can screw money out of us in their new shopping mall instead of just getting us onto the flight…the reason we went to the airport in the first place, they can’t claim it’s for national security.

hellsbrink
24th Mar 2008, 12:47
Max, pray tell how having your fingerprints "tagged" to a boarding pass/ticket in your name is breaching Article 8? How does that interfere with your "PRIVATE OR FAMILY LIFE" (the other two don't count in this case) when you are willingly handing over details of who you are, etc, when you buy the ticket, hand over your passport (yes, the details on your passport are "tagged" onto the boarding pass/ticket too and you don't complain about that), etc?

Breach of Data Protection, yes. Breach of Yoomin Roights, no.

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 13:04
Lawyers better able to understand the article disagree with you.

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police have wide powers to take photographs, fingerprints and body samples of persons without their consent where they had been charged with, or convicted of, a recordable offence. These powers have been considerably extended by amendments contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under the new powers, the police may also take fingerprints and body samples without consent where a person has been detained in consequence of an arrest for a recordable offence (before charge).

Previously, fingerprints and DNA samples taken would have to be destroyed in the event of the person being acquitted, or if the charges were dropped or not pursued. Following amendments to PACE by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the police now have powers to retain fingerprints and DNA samples lawfully taken from any person - regardless of whether or not they are subsequently convicted of an offence. These records will then be held on databases, but should be used for subsequent detection of crime only.

There was significant concern that this power was incompatible with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention, but the Court of Appeal has recently upheld this power in its application to retained fingerprints and samples taken from persons charged with recordable offences. This decision is being appealed to the House of Lords, who will hear the appeal in July 2004. It appears that it will be normal policy for most police forces in the UK to retain fingerprints and DNA samples.

The power to take photographs of suspects and, thereafter, to retain these photographs for the prevention or detection of crime has recently been extended by amendments to PACE brought about by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Under a new section, Section 64A of PACE, the police have wider powers to take photographs, and to retain these photographs even where the suspect is subsequently released, not charged or acquitted of an offence. It remains to be seen whether this power, involving a more direct interference with Article 8 through the visual identification of individuals, would be found to be similarly compatible with the rights under Article 8 as in the case of fingerprints and DNA samples.

The BAA are not the police last time I checked.

PS This is taken from from Liberty uk.

hellsbrink
24th Mar 2008, 13:18
Max

As I pointed out earlier, when you decide to buy a ticket from BA (or any other carrier) you AGREE to the t&c which says "obey any security measures" they impose. That means you give them explicit consent.

Now, what does BA taking your prints have to do with the PACE? We are talking about something completely different to police powers here, and indeed how the rozzers handle such things so I fail to see where the rambling about how the police's powers have changed has anything to do with BA taking prints for their own purposes. Now, since BA are clearly stating that the files are destroyed (and they will have to prove this so you can be sure they are destroyed) within 24 hours, how can you compare that to the police, etc, hanging onto any biometric data of yours/mine/whoever ad infinitum? And since said data is destroyed within 24 hours, pray tell us how your "life" is somehow compromised when you willingly give them far more data than that when you book a ticket, hand over a passport, etc?

radeng
24th Mar 2008, 13:31
Another Pprune thread raised the question of decontamination of the equipment. Somebody witha skin disease (or who hadn't washed their hands after a toilet visit) could well leave bacteria to infect someone else - especially if one happenend to have an open cut on a finger.

And what will the jobsworths do about someone who has a couple of fingers with sticking plasters on because of cuts? One can just see the fun of removing the plasters and bleeding onto their nice new machinery..especially if there was a suspicion of HIV.

Not very well thought out........

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 13:39
hellsbrink, I understood from your response that you believed that Article 8 had no bearing on fingerprints. It does, so I posted the pace article to prove that the convention does cover biometric data. (It's what I could find)

The police are exempt from complying with Article 8, the BAA are not. The BAA will also pass your data to other services including the Police, customs, and various intelligence agency’s. Not quite as innocuous as it first appears.

I don’t buy tickets, they are provided for me, therefore I agree to nothing. In fact I will drive to GLA rather than suffer security at our airports…and this is from someone who flies for a living. I have no problem with photo ID, I object to biometric data. For me it’s one step too far.

I will now refuse to accept travel through T5 at LHR. The company will have to find another way

Capot
24th Mar 2008, 14:23
those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.The stupid, stupid, stupid mantra of those who can't think through how these measures can be turned aganist the citizen.

It's what the Nazis told the Jews when they told them to register.

The fingerprinting at T5 is a very short step to blocking a citizen's travel plans because some junior office assistant with limited skills muddled his fingerprint records with someone else's several years before.

And then it a matter of trying to prove you have nothing to hide, not the other way round.

It's almost as short a step to being prevented from travelling because you, or someone with 98% similar fingerprints, said the wrong thing in a pub a little while ago.

(If you are so credulous as to believe that these fingerprints will only ever be used SOLELY to identify you on your way through the terminal, and then destroyed, you should not go out without an adult escort. )

These are all arguments against the ID card, of course, for the simple reason that fingerprinting at airports is an integral part of the ID card scheme being introduced as we speak by stealth.

By the way, for those who appear confused, it's not BA, the ticket-seller, who wants your fingerprints. It's BAA; you know, that Spanish-owned and controlled company that now owns our major airport gateways. And you have no contract with BAA if you are a BA customer.

ShyTorque
24th Mar 2008, 14:55
The fingerprinting at T5 is a very short step to blocking a citizen's travel plans because some junior office assistant with limited skills muddled his fingerprint records with someone else's several years before.

And then it a matter of trying to prove you have nothing to hide, not the other way round.


I totally agree with that; I've experienced it myself, first hand. Some years ago I was travelling with my 8 year old son. We arrived in NZ from Australia and as soon as our passports were seen by the immigration officer, he looked around, pressed some sort of a button and shortly afterwards his phone rang. He turned away from us so we couldn't hear what he was saying. He put the phone down and was clearly agitated. He said he had to "refer" us; I asked what that meant, he didn't answer. We were detained, the folk behind us waved across to the next desk and then someone else arrived and we were taken to a side desk, and asked all sorts of questions.

The officials at this side desk kept asking me to confirm our details and origins etc - yet they were in the passports right in front of them. They eventually fetched what I took to be a higher level of supervisor who asked me the same questions again. After a few more phone calls and further waiting they gave us back our passports, begrudgingly, I thought. I asked again why we had been detained and got no answer. Nothing else was said, we were just waved away.

We were delayed about half an hour; which was no major issue - except my wife and my other two young children had gone through the immigration channel immediately before us. She saw us being led away but could get no answer from the officials there; they only told her to move on, out of arrivals! Not surprisingly, she became quite scared by what was going on.

On trying to leave NZ, we went through a similar rigmarole. We were held at departures until more phone calls were made, supervisors spoken to etc. I never did find out why this happened, but it was alarming, to say the least.

But then, I know another story of an aircrew member who was detained in USA for a lot longer than half an hour not too long after 9/11... Reason? His name is Ben Landon.... :rolleyes:

It's what the Nazis told the Jews when they told them to register.


Yes, my fear is that once a system like this is introduced, it is impossible to disestablish it. I'm not saying this government want to use the information for evil purposes; however who is to know what regime may be in place in a few years from now...we just don't know and we shouldn't allow this to happen.

Capot
24th Mar 2008, 14:55
Thanks for those links, very informative.

Edit: Someone posted a link, after my last post, to http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/D15B7ACEA34084648025731A003EB0A0?OpenDocument

which has just disappeared...

Selective quotations.....

the JBOC, set up in January 2005 to fight illegal immigration, terrorism and other crimes, (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/eborders/jboc) has issued 12,044 alerts to relevant agencies, resulting in 1,047 arrests and other interventions. This month, alerts resulted in a murder suspect being detained at Heathrow and the location of a hostile witness in a kidnap case leaving the UK before trial.So, 10,997 alerts did not result in an arrest. Why? Why does one suspect that false information was probably a major reason?

Who was the witness hostile to? Does that remove the right to travel? Or did the Police simply decide that they would prefer it if he (she?) stayed at home, regardless of their powers to enforce that?

There is a certain mismatch between the figure of 2 cases in March which the authorities are using to justify the scheme, even though one of those is dubious, and the apparent average of about 309 alerts per month.
Or was March a particularly unusual month? Hmmm.

Sallyann1234
24th Mar 2008, 15:36
Now, since BA are clearly stating that the files are destroyed (and they will have to prove this so you can be sure they are destroyed) within 24 hours, how can you compare that to the police, etc, hanging onto any biometric data of yours/mine/whoever ad infinitum?
The digitised prints will be held on BAA's computer for 24 hours and then destroyed. OK.
But it only needs one pair of wires connected to that computer to stream out the data in real time to somewhere off-site where it can be stored, used, misused, tapped-into and/or lost.

Lost_luggage34
24th Mar 2008, 15:58
I just knew that sooner or later someone would bring Liberty into the equation.

Some of the things that they stand for are worth an ear - but not their opinion on this. They just seem to have stuck their oar in to keep themselves in the media.

At the end of the day the Police have nothing to do with this - so why some people have brought that up is beyond comprehension.

Yes, I have concerns about the way our Government treat personal data in light of recent events - but that also has nothing to do with this.

The fundamental fact is, as some have said, if you have nothing to hide why be concerned.

What is the difference between walking down the street and being captured on a multitude of CCTV cameras vs having a fingerprint scan in T5 ?

Very good point about amputees ETOPS !

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 16:44
Lost luggage34. Sorry you can’t comprehend the connection between Article 8 and biometric data.

I though it was plainly obvious and whilst this discussion is about the BAA and fingerprinting and since the article about pace was in respect to biometric data, there was relevance. I.E it showed biometric data is covered by the convention and therefore does apply to the BAA. The reason that BAA want this is that “The airport claims fingerprinting is necessary so that all passengers - domestic and international - can mix freely in Terminal 5's huge airside shopping mall” Not a good enough reason for me to consent to being fingerprinted by a private firm.

As for the nothing to hide argument. I am innocent until proven guilty. I do not have to prove my innocence. We are not supposed to be a police state…yet. I would rather take the risk of a terrorist attack than surrender to that option. I was once a tiny cog in the security apparatus of the UK, nothing glamorous, just a low life doing anti terrorist ops in a rainy place. I saw first hand what occurs so forgive me if I don’t take comfort in those words.:(

BDiONU
24th Mar 2008, 16:52
It's what the Nazis told the Jews when they told them to register.
Godwins law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

BD

G-CPTN
24th Mar 2008, 17:05
Terminal 5's huge airside shopping mallWhy do we need anything other than travel-related functions in airports? Isn't the objective merely to channel passengers onto aircraft?
I agree that when schedules slip the delayed passengers may need sustenance (and some choose to utilise the inevitable waiting time to eat), but we seem to have turned a travel experience into retail therapy.
Wouldn't the operation be more efficient (ie less distance to walk) without the shops?

ORAC
24th Mar 2008, 17:10
The Register: ICO queries Heathrow T5's huge fingerprint scam/scan (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/24/ico_queries_t5_fingerprinting/)

Lost_luggage34
24th Mar 2008, 17:14
Totally irrelevant;

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police have wide powers to take photographs, fingerprints and body samples of persons without their consent where they had been charged with, or convicted of, a recordable offence. These powers have been considerably extended by amendments contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under the new powers, the police may also take fingerprints and body samples without consent where a person has been detained in consequence of an arrest for a recordable offence (before charge).

Also totally irrelevant;

Previously, fingerprints and DNA samples taken would have to be destroyed in the event of the person being acquitted, or if the charges were dropped or not pursued. Following amendments to PACE by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the police now have powers to retain fingerprints and DNA samples lawfully taken from any person - regardless of whether or not they are subsequently convicted of an offence. These records will then be held on databases, but should be used for subsequent detection of crime only.

And again, totally irrelvant;

There was significant concern that this power was incompatible with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention, but the Court of Appeal has recently upheld this power in its application to retained fingerprints and samples taken from persons charged with recordable offences. This decision is being appealed to the House of Lords, who will hear the appeal in July 2004. It appears that it will be normal policy for most police forces in the UK to retain fingerprints and DNA samples.

Now we get to some sort of relevance;

The power to take photographs of suspects and, thereafter, to retain these photographs for the prevention or detection of crime has recently been extended by amendments to PACE brought about by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Under a new section, Section 64A of PACE, the police have wider powers to take photographs, and to retain these photographs even where the suspect is subsequently released, not charged or acquitted of an offence. It remains to be seen whether this power, involving a more direct interference with Article 8 through the visual identification of individuals, would be found to be similarly compatible with the rights under Article 8 as in the case of fingerprints and DNA samples.


I still do not see any connection between the Police and what the BAA are going to use as a very valid, efficient and suitable security measure in operating T5.

Are you a frequent traveller or are you just one of those Liberty type people who jump up and down about human rights ?

I feel fairly certain that you walk along a street and therefore, are captured on CCTV. There is NO difference.

Bus429
24th Mar 2008, 17:16
I believe that all necessary measures need to be taken to ensure our safety. However, if BAA were not so bleeding greedy - after all, they pioneered shopping malls from which you can catch flights - the finger print option would not be required. Separate departing and arriving pax: simple. It is my opinion too that this is the thin end...

I hate BAA airports; LHR most of all, closely followed by LGW. Shame they do not plough investment into keeping the toilets/corridors/airbridges/you name it clean. Many UK regional airports run by local authorities are far superior to BAA airports.

Another thing: what is it with those jobsworth "security" w*nkers? As they "assist" you through, they all seem to be talking loudly about the next break or which lane they should shut down to further your inconvenience. They seem to pay little attention to the monitors but seem to relish the chance of squeezing your knackers if you are unfortunate enough to beep as you go through the arch.:ugh:

ORAC
24th Mar 2008, 17:32
I believe that all necessary measures need to be taken to ensure our safety. However, if BAA were not so bleeding greedy - after all, they pioneered shopping malls from which you can catch flights - the finger print option would not be required. Separate departing and arriving pax: simple. It is my opinion too that this is the thin end...

If you read my link to The Register, above, you'll find that BAA already run a combined domestic/international area at Gatwick using just photographs, with no complaints.

My personal view is reflected in the general text and the last paragraph. They were requested/pressurised by the Home Office into incorporating the fingerprint requirement, and it is the Home Office who are now playing slopey shoulders to put all the blame/responsibility onto BAA.

glad rag
24th Mar 2008, 17:49
LL 34

"I feel fairly certain that you walk along a street and therefore, are captured on CCTV. There is NO difference."

I think that you may have to change your view on this shortly.

rgds

GR

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 17:50
Lost luggage34 I fly every time I go to work. That means I go through security around 300+ times a year how about you? Not only that but I have an airside pass so I have to jump thorough all those extra little hoops that our leaders dream up in the name of security.

I explained the reason for including the quote from pace etc. I assumed that readers had the ability to see and apply for themselves the relevant passages and how they applied to the convention and the topic without me having to pick them out…it seems I was mistaken in your case.

You must be familiar with the term “taking the salami one slice at a time” What do you think this is? Do you honestly believe that if the public accept this that the government won’t be coming back for more? The temptation in the name of security will be overwhelming.

Your distain for Liberty is your affair. I, to be honest only stumbled across them when looking to counter hellsbrink today. I don’t know whether they are good/bad or indifferent. What I do know is that no-one is wrong 100% of the time. To dismiss them out of hand says more about you than you might think.

There is a huge difference between a photo and biometric data. If you are right and there is no difference between fingerprints and a photo, why is the government going through all this trouble to get the data?

ORAC
24th Mar 2008, 18:12
There is a huge difference between a photo and biometric data. Indeed there is, which is why so many people are able to travel on forged/altered travel documents - which is what biometric passports are designed to prevent.

This discussion needs to be split into two areas.

1. The need for biometric passports and the associated biometric checks by Border & Immigration control to ensure they match with the traveller.

2. The need for also gathering of biometric data for movement within the airport.

Could, hypothetically, someone wishing to leave the country unrecorded, enter the lounge on a domestic ticket without going through Border Control biometric clearance, then swap documents with a look-alike confederate who had gone through clearance - and board the flight purely on the passport photograph?

Could someone in transit through LHR, without going through immigration, exchange their documents with someone on a domestic trip and go on a domestic leg, unchecked, whilst the other person, as above, continues the international flight?

Depends how much faith you put in photographs and the care and attention people use in checking them. Having had intruders gain access to sites using ID with a photo of a gorilla during exercises I am skeptical as to their value.

jshg
24th Mar 2008, 18:20
It's also noticeable in all the above references that a security measure starts with personal data being automatically destroyed, and then lo and behold a few months/years later the law is changed and the information can be retained at the government's discretion. The government's wish no doubt is that these fingerprints will be another piece in the jigsaw so that a few years hence they decide that all this information should be retained and integrated.
The end result will be that someone will be refused access to T5 because Blogsworth Council has deemed that he/she has put too much/too little/the wrong stuff in his/her recycling bin. That is the modern British way I'm afraid, and it must be resisted at all costs.

G-CPTN
24th Mar 2008, 18:25
As unbelievable as it may seem, I have heard of couples being 'cleared' through passport checks with each other's passport (and not side-by-side) when one has gone off to the loo before boarding.

max_cont
24th Mar 2008, 18:36
ORAC you’re absolutely correct.

Biometrics data is very hard but not impossible to replicate today. However one can foresee a time when it will be easy. What then?

The only reason for fingerprinting us now is to allow a greedy self serving private monopoly to mix domestic and international passengers in the name of profit. That is not a valid reason to insist passengers give biometric data. I would not object, but there is no alternative on offer. I would happily forgo shopping and sit in isolation until my flight departs if needed.

I won’t be giving fingerprints and if that means no T5...so what.

BDiONU
24th Mar 2008, 18:43
If you read my link to The Register, above, you'll find that BAA already run a combined domestic/international area at Gatwick using just photographs, with no complaints.
Is it your learned opinion that actually there is no abuse of individuals 'rights' (whatever they are)?

BD

Ibis
24th Mar 2008, 19:02
Don't fly BA, since there are the only occupier of T5! ;)

Jay.Walker.DUS
24th Mar 2008, 19:06
There are many reasons why I have avoided LHR like the plague for years; this will just be one more.

I feel sorry for BA, as their J-class product is actually very good, and so is their network. But I will not subject myself to the shambles that is LHR, and therefore BA is losing my business. I know the I'm not the only one, as a matter of fact a very large numbers of my (travelling) collegues have made the same choice. Good for LH, LX, KL and AF - bad for BA. Even our bean counters have stopped bitching if we select, for instance, LH over BA even if the price is higher - they too travel and are also avoiding LHR!

And it's not just BAA, albeit they are the major hurdle. The straw that broke the camels back for a lot of us is the no-smoking law - coupled with the fact that LHR is so fcuked-up even a 2 hour connection does not leave enough time to go outside for a smoke without getting stuck in a security check, and miss the connecting flight.

No way BAA! I'd rather holiday in Lagos than transit in London!

hellsbrink
24th Mar 2008, 20:31
I see the hysterics are still going on.

Max, you still have not answered my question as to the relevance of the PACE act in this case. You are still convinced that, despite everything that has been said, that the data will be held forever on some secret database with your name, address and scrotum size like the police wish to do and every :mad: will have access to it. You still seem to think that your "life" is somehow going to be affected by this DESPITE (by your own admission) they will have a HUGE record of your every movement through LHR as you "fly 300 times per year" and indeed have an airside pass. How will this affect YOU, as, by your own admission, they have records of every flight you take, they will have records of the use of your airside pass, they will have records of your name/address/credit card/telephone number/DoB/inside leg/testicle shape anyway!

So, since BAA/BA already have all that, why is this such an issue to you? This isn't the HMG database tied to ID cards we are talking about (yet, that will come. It was stated quite clearly in the budget that HMG wish to roll out this sort of thing across every airport), and will not be tied explicitly to your name/address/etc. The Data Protection Act is clear on things like that, and there has been penalties handed out over breaches in the past. So where is this "Human Rights" :mad: coming from when, as has been stated by A.N. Other, you are applying a case which has absolutely no relevance to the situation at T5 or the other terminals where they are printing? And why aren't you whiniing your guts out over the same printing being taken at other terminals at LHR, as has been stated by others? Isn't having your picture taken at Gatwick the same, why not the same howling over that? Oh, it NOW affects YOU, so bugger all those who have been printed/photographed up until now.

Here's a better idea for you, take the train. Then nobody will want to photo/print you, will they. If that is not convenient to you, then get another bloody job.

(PS. Do remember how those trying to escape justice get caught. The police tell the airport/harbour/eurostar. Then, IF your name is on a list it gets flashed up and people get called. Nobody will be monitoring YOU when you fly unless you have been a naughty pillock)

airship
24th Mar 2008, 20:48
If similar efforts were applied to the checked-in baggage for the hold, would that result in fewer lost bags, or at least fewer bags that followed on a later flight...?! I'd be willing to unbelt, bendover and allow the young check-in clerk to run a q-tip along my ass-cheeks if it really would help...?! :(

llondel
24th Mar 2008, 21:05
max_cont:
I won’t be giving fingerprints and if that means no T5...so what.


Well said. I will be doing my best to avoid T5, it'll only be if my company screws up booking flights and then I'll have every incentive to see what happens when I refuse to give fingerprints.

max_cont
25th Mar 2008, 08:07
Hellsbrink, I answered your question in full regarding pace and its relevance. IE the article regarding pace included the subject of biometric data…you know fingerprints etc. Since article 8 was relevant for biometric data in pace it must be relevant in all cases regarding biometric data….especially if the person objects to that data being taken for no other reason than for commercial profit. I can’t make it any clearer than that. If you can’t see it then tough.

We are still a free society and I have the choice whether I supply my data to a private company or not. I’m not preventing you from using the system if you wish. Why are you and your type insisting I use the system against my will?

hellsbrink
25th Mar 2008, 09:42
Yes Max, you have a choice. Don't fly as within 2 years EVERY airport will be taking prints as per HMG instructions.

And you are talking about two completely different things when you compare the taking of prints/dna/etc by the police and holding them on a PERMANENT database and what is happening at LHR. Just because there may be an issue with the way the police are handling biometric data does not mean a completely different system, with completely different objectives, with a completely different method can possibly be described in the same manner. As I said, nice to see the hysteria continuing.

Oh, one other thing. How much would you be whining your guts out if you were being delayed for a considerable time whilst every Pax/ticket was manually checked? The way I see this system working is that your pass gets checked (possibly automatically by putting it into a machine like Eurostar) and when your hand goes on the scanner it will either go "Beep" or "Buzz". Think of how many people will be going through that terminal every hour, and think how long it will take to process each person manually, and that is before we consider those transferring to other flights. Anything which speeds up that process has to be a good idea.

And to those who are whining about needing to be checked so you can be herded to the overpriced stores, nobody forces you to buy anything. Get over it.

max_cont
25th Mar 2008, 10:51
Hellsbrink, I notice again you avoid answering any questions.

Your points are fallacious and irrelevant. FWIW my other half works in T5 and tells me that LGW has the biometric system but it doesn’t work so they use photo ID. If you had bothered to read the thread you would realize that I have no problem with photo ID…in fact I have lots of them.

You seem to be happy to hand over data to anyone who demands it…that’s your choice. I choose differently. You obviously know little about what causes bottlenecks at UK airports…especially since you seem to be in Brussels.

The Euro Star system may work if you haven’t had to endure airport “security” That is the bottleneck and no amount of fingerprinting will change that. The effectiveness of the window dressing they call “security” is pitiful. It is designed to placate the uninformed travelling public…nothing more.

You and your type meekly acquiesce to any demand for personal information whether justified or not. So far the demand has not been justified by you the government or the BAA. (Note not BA) Until this system can be justified I will not partake. (My choice)

Since this may affect my employment I have also sought legal advice regarding this matter so forgive me if I don’t bother taking your word regarding Article 8 and its applicability.

To finish, you have your opinion and I have mine. You will never convince me of the merits of the system and its relevanc to domestic travel and I will never convince you of the unacceptable invasion of an individual’s privacy…so subject closed.

42psi
25th Mar 2008, 10:59
Hellsbrink .... not trying to intefere here but I think you're missing part of the point...


the biometric data is for the particular T5 application is not really for the purposes of entry/exit to the UK .... you are quite right that it would appear to be the UK govt. intention to make that the prime future method of control.


However, it's purpose in T5 is to allow the BAA to open up their "shopping experience" to a wider mix of passengers than would otherwise be the case ....


It's not that long ago (in fact I think it's still the case!) that the DfT berates airports and threatens curtailment of operations if they do not ensure segregation of arriving/departing/transit passengers.


If I understand max_cont correctly, what's being said is that the introduction of the biometric data control in T5 is to allow passenger mix for purely commercial profit oriented reasons - i.e. to open the shops to passengers that otherwise might not be able to spend their pennies tot he BAA's & it's commercial partners betterment.


Using the collection of biometric data in this way - for this purpose - might be considered differently from using it for the purpose of border control.


I can see how there might be a principled objection to allowing a commercial organisation to collect individual biometric data so that it can increase revenues and that this would be outside the intent of it's legal application in controlling borders by a control authority.


Perhaps a (not that good I know) comparable example might be:

I might not object to French border controls using biometric data to control my entry as I move from a non-schengen UK but I might not be too keen to a Calais hypermarket using it ...... (;))

brownstar
25th Mar 2008, 11:06
lost luggage 34

You say that you have concerns about how her goverment handle information about us, then you say that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Well, who decides that you have nothing to hide. The systems that are slowly being introduced are switching you from being assumed innocent to prove to us that you are innocent.
The argument is against the normalisation of taking your fingerprints. Do you realy want to live in a society that records your every movement, monitors your spending habits, your preferences. You might wish to compare this to a cctv camera viewing you walking down the street, this is a far cry from a future vision where you have to give a fingerprint to purchase or recieve goods, your genetic code is monitored for future abnormalities, any time that you have been stopped by the police has been recorded, even if you have done nothing wrong, is set on your police record, your childrens dna is taken at birth without your concent, the list goes on.
When will we decide that to be a free individual is a god given right and that the people in power are there to represent our desires, and not that the people in power should by pass democratic process and impose the will of the few on the people of this country.
I'm going to lie down for a bit now till i calm down!

Keef
25th Mar 2008, 11:32
It's the "surveillance society". Refer Jeremy Bentham and successors.

They collect all this information because they can, and governments like to. It gives small dictators the chance to make themselves feel important. The UK already has an incredible number of CCTV cameras, road cameras, and the like. We are being monitored all the time.

The counter is that there aren't enough secret police to watch us all, all the time (the Stasi aren't here) so the task is left to computers.

The data collection is so routine and so widespread that the data collectors (I don't go so far as to call them "data guardians") have become sloppy. Hence the mislaid/leaked stuff.

I would be very, very worried about HMG having all my details (name, address, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, DNA, fingerprints, and so on) in one place. They'd "lose" it, sooner or later, and the criminal underworld would instantly have all they need to do a complete identity theft, empty my bank account, and leave me scuppered.

This is another step along the path, and it reminds me of Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

I think serious questions need to be asked about the competence of Government to safeguard the highly sensitive information they are collecting. I would also bar absolutely any company, activity, etc from gathering personal information that they do not need (and are not authorised to collect).

If BAA want folks to shop, then can have the fingerprint scanner on the entrance/exit to the shopping mall, and let the rest of us go straight from the check-in desk to the departure lounge without being fingerprinted. I don't want to mix with arriving pax, or hand them my boarding card.

hellsbrink
25th Mar 2008, 12:17
One is not missing any point here, 42psi. One is wondering how BAA/BA taking your prints in this case and matching that to your ticket/boarding pass is comparable to the rozzers taking your prints/photo/DNA/genital shape and size and keeping it on a permanent record. After all, that is what Max is saying, if what the police are doing may be a breach of Article 8 then surely what BAA/BA are doing must be a breach too as it involves your prints and it doesn't matter how the data is used! Can't you see the differences between the PACE and the scheme being run at LHR?

Now, as said, why do you think they are running prints in this way? Ever thought it is to speed up security checks as comparing EVERY photo of EVERY person takes longer?

Now, the reasons for the design of T5 are something I do not know. And I doubt you know what input came from HMG regarding the design either. It could even be a directive from HMG so it's easier to police, who knows. It has to be better than that maze they call the rest of LHR (even when you work there you can still get lost, trust me) and since you are handing over far more info as soon as you buy a ticket then where is the issue?

Now, since this is just a BAA/BA thing and not an HMG plot to keep all your info (yet), I fail to see where all the stuff about the government's record on keeping your data safe comes into it. Oh, and nobody forces you to buy anything from the shops, you would be exposed to them in some way anyway, so that's no argument either.

glad rag
25th Mar 2008, 13:04
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=512571 :=

max_cont
25th Mar 2008, 17:28
FWIW. I mentioned to Hellsbrink that I had asked for legal advice regarding this matter.

I have now received considered legal opinion.

[Smug mode on] Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights 1998 does apply in this case. :ok:
[Smug mode off] There are tests for exemptions to the Convention.

It is the opinion of Council, that the reasons so far stated by BAA for implementing the biometric system would fail to satisfy the tests for exemption from Article 8. :=

Mini fan
25th Mar 2008, 18:28
I feel fairly certain that you walk along a street and therefore, are captured on CCTV. There is NO difference.

So when they announce a fingerprint scanner on every street corner I hope you'll be the 1st one telling everyone to calm down and it's all for the best.

Rightbase
25th Mar 2008, 18:48
Keef -
I would be very, very worried about HMG having all my details (name, address, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, DNA, fingerprints, and so on) in one place. They'd "lose" it, sooner or later, and the criminal underworld would instantly have all they need to do a complete identity theft, empty my bank account, and leave me scuppered.I'm with you until you add fingerprint and DNA. An identity thief could walk up with all the rest and indeed leave me scuppered, but (s)he would hardly include my fingerprint and DNA.
The main risk with biometric files as far as I can see is of somebody else providing their DNA/fingerprint/iris scan as mine, then stealing my financial identity leaving me unable to get it back. As I see it, the more different places that hold the biometrics confirming my identity, the easier it is for me to prove I am the real me if it is ever questioned.

gdiphil
25th Mar 2008, 19:34
There is a very simple point in all this it strikes me, and that is it is a point of principle. I am a private individual, BAA is also in the private sector. I choose who has my data. I give data to the airline on buying the ticket. Thereafter limited legal data is permitted by the airline to be released to 3rd parties with my consent in the air ticket contract. Thereafter other parties have the lawful authority to take limited data from me, eg immigration, customs. Beyond that the law governs all other people including businesses such as BAA. So they are not lawfully entitled to effectively blackmail me into surrendering details in order for me to get on an aircraft. The "have nothing to hide" argument is specious. The law is we are all able to hide what we want and others are not entitled to know without either our consent or with lawful authority. Forced consent is not consent obviously, including those who willingly give it thinking they have to when there is no obligation to comply.

42psi
25th Mar 2008, 20:22
One is not missing any point here, 42psi. One is wondering how BAA/BA taking your prints in this case and matching that to your ticket/boarding pass is comparable to the rozzers taking your prints/photo/DNA/genital shape and size and keeping it on a permanent record. After all, that is what Max is saying, if what the police are doing may be a breach of Article 8 then surely what BAA/BA are doing must be a breach too as it involves your prints and it doesn't matter how the data is used! Can't you see the differences between the PACE and the scheme being run at LHR?

That's why I feel you're missing the point ... PACE and what the police do is irrelevent .... the example appears to me to have been given simply to illustrate that however well meaning/intentioned and apparently legalised the gathering of biometric data can be ... it can still be held as a breach of the CHR Articles. You've keep going on about PACE - it's irrelevent - it was an example/illustration.


Now, as said, why do you think they are running prints in this way? Ever thought it is to speed up security checks as comparing EVERY photo of EVERY person takes longer?

It's not required .... it's purpose is to allow mixing of passenger types into shops. No method is needed ... I say again - it's not for UK entry/security control it's to allow shopping.


Now, the reasons for the design of T5 are something I do not know. And I doubt you know what input came from HMG regarding the design either. It could even be a directive from HMG so it's easier to police, who knows. It has to be better than that maze they call the rest of LHR (even when you work there you can still get lost, trust me) and since you are handing over far more info as soon as you buy a ticket then where is the issue?

If I get the chance I'll try and dig out some of the old project stuff I have been involved in - that most certainly contained the guidelines from DfT on termianl design and a criteria was complete segregation of arriving/departing passenger flows and no possible mixing of transferring passengers until after they had been security checked at the transferring arfield - this applied even if they were coming from annother UK airfield with the same security arrangements. Airport with "historic" existing buildings were allowed not to fully comply but all new build HAD TO.


Now, since this is just a BAA/BA thing and not an HMG plot to keep all your info (yet), I fail to see where all the stuff about the government's record on keeping your data safe comes into it. Oh, and nobody forces you to buy anything from the shops, you would be exposed to them in some way anyway, so that's no argument either.

Personally I'm not the least interested in that it breaks down a really simply issue for me - I'm easily pleased I guess!!


If you want an example of DfT segregarion requirements as they are normally applied I point you to MAN .... C pier in T1 for years was open plan with no segregation at all between arriving and departing passengers. This was allowed to survive for many years as "existing historic" ... however now the area has a complex web of glass dividers and connecting doors to segregate passenger flows.

Contrast that with the MAN "new build" in T3 where there was strict seperation of passenger flows arriving/departing being kept in different building levels - as reccomended by DfT.

As for LHR .... few years now since I worked there but certainly T1 B pier used to have arriving & departing passengers able to mix on the main finger. This was common with many of the piers as I recall.

Design of T5 must have been discussed with DfT at an early stage - they have the ability to prevent it opening if they don't feel it's compliant.

That leaves the premise that they approved everything based on the assurances given them by BAA ...... it still doesn't make anything the BAA are doing right, proper or even legal.


As for contractural issues ... there have to be at least two parties to any contract. Both must have the ability to accept or reject the contract and be provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision.

A contract which doesn't provide this cannot (as I understand it) be enforcable as the "agreement" cannot take place.

Passengers travelling through a terminal do not at any point make a "contract" with the airport - only the airline. The only other obligation on them is that they must comply with the control authority (i.e. govt.) requirements......... shopping is not one of them!!

Ken Wells
25th Mar 2008, 22:30
If it speeds up the process and makes the Border control morons smile, instead of looking like a line UP from crime watch themselves, i'M ALL FOR IT!

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 02:31
1. The printing scheme was decided on after discussions with the BIA and DfT. THEY decided that it was the most robust way of making sure things were secure.

2. Again, possible breach of Data Protection Act and no more than that.

3. If it is a breach of Article 8, why are Liberty saying nothing on their site regarding that, why are Privacy International saying nothing about that, Amnesty have nothing, Justice have nothing.... If it was, these people would be the first to start screaming. So, Max, which council is saying that it is a breach as nobody else is....

max_cont
26th Mar 2008, 07:52
Hellsbrink, words fail me. My post contains all the information you seek.

Posts: 144 FWIW. I mentioned to Hellsbrink that I had asked for legal advice regarding this matter. IE I went to the legal firm I use and actually asked the question as a client.

I have now received considered legal opinion.

IE It took all day, but they rang me up and gave me their professional opinion. They know the situation as it affects me and my employment. (Note, this is not some bloke on a web site but real life with real consequences and legal fees)

[Smug mode on] Article 8 of the Convention of Human Rights 1998 does apply in this case. Their advice to me. (Self explanatory…even the dimmest feral youth could understand that meaning)

[Smug mode off] There are tests for exemptions to the Convention. Again what the lawyer told to me when we discussed the case as it applies to my situation.

It is the opinion of Council, that the reasons so far stated by BAA for implementing the biometric system would fail to satisfy the tests for exemption from Article 8.

I.E My legal Council. Since I will probably at some time be refusing to be fingerprinted and my company will no doubt insist I wave my rights, there is likely to be a costly legal battle. I take that situation very seriously and therefore I don’t rely on the WWW to get advice. I go to a real firm of solicitors’ who charge real money for professional advice.

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 09:15
Max, words are failing me. The very people who are making the most noise about this scheme are the ones who know the law inside out, have highly paid lawyers, etc. So why are they just saying Data Protection Act?

Now, I could go to a lawyer and get a different answer to you (and the reason I asked which "council" it was is because you take legal COUNSEL, so little wonder there is some confusion). Which one is right?

But, please, do spend a fortune on a test case. It will sort out everything. I, personally, would like to see the explanation as to why/why not the printing is/is not legal. Until it has been tested in court, then it IS legal. And since you are the one who will be refusing to comply with an approved security measure (can't wait until the information people approve the scheme under the DPA, as they will, as that will screw up any test case), you ain't going to be flying. Hope you like trains. And you still haven't explained how you can compare the police wanting to hold all your info forever compares to BAA/BA holding said info for under 24hrs, why there has been no complaints regarding the system being trialled in other terminals and how some joey staring at pictures is somehow as secure as the few seconds it will take for the computers, on a closed and encrypted network, to verify that you are the person who checked in for a certain flight.

(PS. I'm waiting on replies from real lawyers who specialise in Human Rights in the UK. We'll see what is said then)

groundhand
26th Mar 2008, 12:22
Fingerprinting at airports will become the norm over the next 5-7 years. it is also likely to come into several different aspects of everyday life. get used to it. It is going to happen.

If you work in France at APD locations (not sure about other airport operators) and hold a staff pass; you've had this for several years. It's not a problem and it provides quick approval at security points.

In Sweden, and I believe Denmark, there are plans to introduce fingerprint ID for airport workers. Sweden already has fingerprint ID for passenger boarding.

Why do some Brits feel so threatened??

If you want to be paranoid think about the fact that HMG can watch you drive into the airport, park your car and move through any part of the public terminal until you board. They've had this ability fro years, it started when the Irish Troubles were at their height and is in place at all the major and regional airports in the UK. They can also track you through every city centre, most shopping malls etec etc.

I really hope that the BAA continue with their programme (and I'm no lover of the BAA or LHR), if employees and the travelling public do not want to take part then they have a choice.

GH

max_cont
26th Mar 2008, 16:23
Hellsbrink, Council/Counsel yes you’re absolutely right I stand corrected. Apologies for the confusion.

You are right that the scheme may yet be approved …but that has not happened yet.

As things stand at this time, the legal opinion I have been given is what I have posted.

As I’m not a lawyer I’m not in a position to argue with that opinion. Unless you’re a lawyer, neither are you.

TwinAisle
26th Mar 2008, 17:10
I hired a car last week from Europcar, and was "invited" (Ha!) to put my thumbprint onto an ink pad and then onto the copy of the contract (that had a lot of data about me listed, name, driving licence number, phones, address, date of birth etc etc)....

I asked what would happen if I declined their kind invite, and was told "no problems, Sir, but then you won't get the car".... apparently this is an anti-fraud measure (what's wrong with chip and PIN??)

Not happy. All I have left that the state doesn't know is my dabs and my irises... wonder who Europcar transmit the data to, and what their disposal policy is (hopefully better than sticking the forms out with the rubbish...)

TA

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 17:52
Chip and pin can be broken, for starters. There have been assorted cases across the UK of fraud with chip and pin (partially because of the so called security used on the card). Trust me, a chip and a pin does NOT make things secure.

Driving licences can be forged (yes, even photo ones. And you should see the Belgian licences), so the company is within its rights to use whatever measures necessary to prevent fraud, etc, provided that data is used in specific ways and NOT disclosed to others

And Max, I ain't a lawyer but I know a hell of a lot more than some people think I do. I know what my "rights" are in various countries, and that is why I have no issue with what BAA/BA is doing but I do have an issue with the proposed data collection under the HMG National ID Card scheme (which, iirc, had a warning that said scheme would actually break EU Data Protection legislation). And you still haven't answered my question regarding the comparison between what is happening at LHR and the PACE act. Just because it involves fingerprints does not mean that the way the data is used is the same as what Her Majesty's Constabulary wishes to do if they ever get a chance to take said info, nor is it the same as what Her Majety's Government wishes to do either.

G-BPED
26th Mar 2008, 17:54
It would seem that in T5 they are going to use photgraphs NOT fingerprinting while there is a "review"

Here is the article from BA's website

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flightops/public/en_gb?p_faqid=3187

Regards,

G-BPED

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 18:00
That'll get the queues longer then while they take their time to ensure that you are EXACTLY the same person as your photo says...


Makes sense though, once the approval comes through (expect pressure from HMG) then there can't be many arguments

max_cont
26th Mar 2008, 18:08
Hellsbrink, because my lawyer tells me so.

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 18:24
And mine may say different.

Suffice to say, until you (allegedly, since we only have your word for it) com out with your test case we have no proof said person said such things.

You say it was your lawyer, for all we know it could have been the Jack Russel beside the fireplace in your local.

No offence, but it is anecdotal.....

max_cont
26th Mar 2008, 19:39
Hellsbrink no offence taken. You have steadfastly refused to answer any direct questions, yet expect others to justify and prove what they say to your satisfaction. Your repost boils down to a simple “no it isn’t” repeated over and over.

I fly for a living. If I get this wrong I stand to lose a career that pays me a salary that quite frankly, I couldn’t replace without robbing a bank. I can assure you that I would not jeopardize that without seeking legal advice.

I took advice because this new procedure directly affects me and my everyday working life. I, like a significant number of pilots are fed up to the back teeth with TRANSEC the BAA et al using aviation and “security as a personal career progression tool as they fight to get their collective snouts into the trough. We suffer their illogical rules and quietly endure indignity and insult every time we turn up for work. At some point you dig your heels in and say no. You just want a chance to bloody (metaphorically) someone’s nose…preferably one those faceless drones that hide behind a veil of secrecy, handing down diktats in the name of “security” Perhaps now you can see why I am spitting mad. That is why I have taken legal advice. I fully intend to be a right royal pain in their collective @rses. I have however, no intention of losing my job over this. But I will enjoy every second of mayhem I cause. :E

Now you on the other hand show your occupation as an electrician. You also don’t seem to care if they bend you over and stuff a finger up your rear end.:ooh: Why then would you bother seeking legal advice that would presumably costs you money? To win a debate with an anonymous poster on PPrune? Sorry hellsbrink, but that’s not very likely.:hmm:

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 20:04
So, Max, you are a pilot using an airside pass.

How does Pax rules affect you as this figerprinting thing is purely tied to those buying tickets to fly on an aircraft and not for those who go through a different security check?

Unless, since I ain't been working at LHR for over a year, my airside pass would not allow me to open certain doors and pass holders now don't have their own "channel" to go through.

As a pilot, you don't now go through the same security gates (not in the terminals) as I used to do? You don't go through a separate security gate from the pax like I used to do?

Why will you get printed if you are not a pax? That is, after all, what this security system is about. The SLF's.

And don't be a total idiot, my LHR pass would get me through doors that some police couldn't. I was cleared for zones 1-6 (I think the only ones higher were Customs and Excise/Immigration). If you are talking about your prints being taken AS A PILOT then I guess you are missing something as you sure as hell ain't a pax with a boarding card or ticket.....

Why would YOU get printed as you are going through a SECURE channel?

CorkEICK
26th Mar 2008, 20:18
If he was positioning as a pax would he not have to go thru the same security as SLF?

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 20:50
If he was positioning as a pax would he not have to go thru the same security as SLF?


We need some more information. He says he does "x" amount of flights per year because of his work so we need to know how many of those are as pax and how many as a pilot.

Now, 300+ flights per year (his words, not mine) means, to me, he is flying the damn things and not being relocated on a daily basis. And, since he is "staff", he won't go through the pax controls but will instead go through the "airside pass" ones. Since the fingerprints are being taken for pax with boarding cards/tickets, I find it hard to believe that someone who is actually working will have a boarding pass or ticket or, indeed, will go through the same procedures as a fee paying pax....


Some clarity may be in order, methinks

west lakes
26th Mar 2008, 21:04
Some clarity may be in order, methinks

Just a thought is this also part of the obviously ongoing battle airside staff are starting regarding the proposal?? that they need national ID cards?

hellsbrink
26th Mar 2008, 21:27
I have no idea about that, west lakes, I am only going by what Max Cont said about his own situation and I thought I had made my opinions regarding the UKID card clear.

If it is what you suggest, then someone has so many wires crossed he is putting the argument about the UKID out the window because it won't affect pax, and if he isn't I would LOVE to know how staff will be affected by the printing as, by my understanding, only those with an actual ticket they bought for a flight will have to have their dabs taken......

Rightbase
26th Mar 2008, 21:51
from G-BPED:
It would seem that in T5 they are going to use photographs NOT fingerprinting while there is a "review"

So a picture of the end of my finger is data, but a picture of my face is not? If it wasn't so expensive, it would be fun to see the worms wriggling on that hook!;)

max_cont
26th Mar 2008, 22:18
Hellsbrink It appears you have a vested interest in this system.
Considering the above, you probably know full well what the procedures for positioning crew are, so don’t play dumb.

It’s now obvious you only have questions and not answers so I won’t waste my time with you.

Rightbase, data is data…but some has to be given by consent. Until that changes don’t expect meek compliance.

Rightbase
26th Mar 2008, 22:47
Max-cont,

For the avoidance of doubt (as they say) the worms I was referring to are the politicians and lawyers who draft and argue over the law. They seem to be assuming a subtlety in their definition of 'data' that I cannot find in the data protection act.

I personally have no quarrel with leaving my fingerprints around the place - I do it all the time. And I have no problem with lots of different organisations having copies of them. In the event of any question of identity their collective records would be my evidence that I am the real me.

IMHO photographs of faces are more sensitive because faces are on public display. Celebrities suffer more from having their faces recognised than they ever would from having their fingerprints recognised.

I agree that some data is more sensitive than other data. We differ on which is which, and I'm not sure the lawyers and politicians have thought it through as thoroughly as some of the security professionals.

But that's nothing new.

max_cont
26th Mar 2008, 23:15
Rightbase ahh all clear now thanks.

You’re spot regarding the lawmakers etc. :ok:

hellsbrink
27th Mar 2008, 11:39
How would I have a vested interest in said system when I live in Antwerp? I have nothing to do with LHR any more, and when I worked there I was just a lowly slave trying to keep the electrics in the place working.

You may have even seen me out in the middle of the airfield repairing the nice shiny illuminated signs, giving you a wave so you knew I had seen you taxiing in my direction, followed by moving several yards to the side so I didn't get blown over by the jet blast.

Yarpy
27th Mar 2008, 12:58
The Information Commissioner has told BAA to scrap the fingerprinting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/nheathrow226.xml

>>Heathrow Terminal 5 fingerprint plans 'illegal'<<

hellsbrink
27th Mar 2008, 14:04
That's a bit misleading, Yarpy, if you read the article it only refers to there MIGHT be a breach of the Data Protection Act.


BAA, the airport operator, took the decision after being warned by the Government's Information Commissioner that the move could breach the Data Protection Act. (my emphasis)




Of course, a headline saying there "might" be an issue doesn't grab the eye as much as big scary letters screaming "ILLEGAL"

Yarpy
27th Mar 2008, 15:43
Try the Guardian then:

Terminal 5 fingerprinting scrapped

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/26/3

Looks terminal to me !

hellsbrink
27th Mar 2008, 17:09
BAA has abandoned plans to fingerprint every passenger passing through Heathrow's Terminal 5 after it was warned the move may breach data protection laws.


The introduction of fingerprinting for domestic passengers and international passengers transferring on to domestic flights at Heathrow will be temporarily delayed.

Same story!! Scheme stopped until the details are thrashed out between BAA and the information watchdog!!

Does NOT mean the scheme is binned!!

Yarpy
28th Mar 2008, 07:20
From one of the organisers of No2ID:

http://forum.no2id.net/viewtopic.php?t=21722

>>When I checked with Terminal 5 directly on Wednesday afternoon, they said that fingerprinting was "suspended indefinitely".

Given that BAA's only justification for fingerprinting was their own deliberate mingling of domestic and international travellers, and that neither DfT nor BIA/Home Office would back them up on it being a "government requirement" it seems unlikely that they will be able to (re)introduce fingerprinting. If they are able to match people to boarding passes using photos - as they must be able to do well enough, having opened for business on that basis - then the use of fingerprints (which the ICO has already deemed far more "intrusive", regardless of the legal position) is clearly unwarranted.<<

hellsbrink
28th Mar 2008, 07:35
BAA/BA were told by Dft/BIA/Home Office to put in a system to ensure security, and happily approved the fingerprinting idea after discussing different schemes with BAA/BA. Neither you, me nor No2ID were privy to those discussions regarding the scheme so unless a transcript of the discussions are released you only have the goivernment's usual back-pedalling to go by.

So, going by the way they (the government) have back pedalled on so many other things, how can you say for certain that it was not a "government requirement" in any way?

And since the terminal has had a total failure on opening, with many people not actually getting to fly, you cannot sit there and believe what anyone says about the photographing being a successful system in any way as it has not been "tested" fully with the capacity of T5. Also, since you are relying on staff to visually check things then you can be sure there will be a mistake or 6 sooner or later, and that is provided they are actually checking everything properly (which is VERY doubtful when you think of the chaos yesterday alone).

Oh, and just becuse it may be "more intrusive" it doesn't mean there is an issue with the legality.

42psi
28th Mar 2008, 07:55
Hellsbrink ....

BAA/BA were told by Dft/BIA/Home Office to put in a system to ensure security, and happily approved the fingerprinting idea after discussing different schemes with BAA/BA.

While your view might be the sensible way to go that's not quite the reality .... the authorities don't partake as such in selecting the methods in quite that way.

General guidence is given in terminal design including passenger flow segregation requirements.

If the airport wishes to mix flows that are required to be segregated they must demonstrate how they intend to control that situation.

They key thing here is that DfT etc will not/do not make any promise at that time (planning stage) that they will actually approve this, nor do they give authority to use the method or opinion on it's legality - that's up to the airport to ensure.

Once ready (or almost) they inspect the area, point out what they don't like and tell you it can't open until you address those issues. They may also point out some items that will require changing but won't prevent opening.

If you as the airport suddenly find that a key part of your methodology might not be workable (for any reason) it's your problem/fault - nothing to with the DfT etc.

They really don't care that much ... all they will do is test the system to ensure the segregation requirement (in this case) is either met or safeguarded.

In this case they will have wanted an assurance up front that some method of accounting for transit passengers is in place - they care not a jot what it is, just that it works.

hellsbrink
28th Mar 2008, 08:09
And the ystem would have worked, and the DfT/HO/BIA did approve it. If there were any doubts, then these bodies should have brought it up earlier.

Yarpy
28th Mar 2008, 08:25
>>So, going by the way they (the government) have back pedaled on so many other things, how can you say for certain that it was not a "government requirement" in any way?<<

I submitted a number of Freedom of Information requests across Government asking what was the legality of the fingerprinting scheme.

The Department of Transport told me:

'this is a requirement set down by the Borders and Immigration Agency'

The Borders and Immigration Agency told me that fingerprinting at T5:

'relates to bye law legislation that governs BAA ports'

I have yet to hear from the BAA!

The 2008 Budget included the following statement:

>>3.41 Improving the passenger experience at the UK’s major airports, particularly Heathrow,
is critical to UK competitiveness. To reduce delays for travellers at Heathrow, Budget 2008
announces new measures with airport operators to improve average and maximum waiting
times at immigration. This will be accompanied by greater use of automated biometric
technology and fast-track routes through immigration.<<

So, you tell me who holds the executive responsibility for all of this.