4 ms·
>If that's true, then why don't they just, you know, end privacy? By covertly erecting systems that end privacy (and attacking privacy tools like Tor), they ar
by mcantelon 13y ago
>If that's true, then why don't they just, you know, end privacy?
By covertly erecting systems that end privacy (and attacking privacy tools like Tor), they are, in effect, ending privacy (without hurting the "US is a champion of freedom" brand to the same degree that explicitly ending privacy would do).
- DanBC 13y agoI wonder if Americans know how long it's been since the US started taking photographs and fingerprints of every non-citizen entering the US? That feels a bit privacy invading, but there wasn't much fuss over it when it was introduced.
- gregsq 13y agoThis is a surprise. I've never been fingerprinted at a US port. Perhaps it's because I have a biometric passport. Still, such a practice can't be universal.
- DanBC 13y ago> Still, such a practice can't be universal. What do you mean by "not universal"? (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/25/us-security-fingerprints-idUSN2538685320080325 http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/25/us-security-finger...) > The U.S. government has been collecting digital fingerprints and photographs of nearly all non-citizens aged 14 and up entering the country since 2004, officials said, in a Homeland Security program called US-VISIT, at a cost of $1.7 billion.