Comments on: US-VISIT approximate costs: $15M per criminal http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/ entertaining hundreds of millions of eyeball atoms every day Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:06:22 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Marty http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-687 Marty Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:21:52 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-687 <i>The program collects digital photos and fingerprint scans of travelers’ index fingers and compares them with photos and fingerprint scans of known terrorists and other criminals on watchlists.</i> You asked: "and does the government even have a public working definition of “terrorist”?" Yes, and apparently it's called a "watchlist". The program collects digital photos and fingerprint scans of travelers’ index fingers and compares them with photos and fingerprint scans of known terrorists and other criminals on watchlists.

You asked: “and does the government even have a public working definition of “terrorist”?”

Yes, and apparently it’s called a “watchlist”.

]]> By: adam http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-686 adam Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:02:44 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-686 I doubt it. My assumption would be that any "serious terrorist" would have several ways to get around this, including false fingerprints, recruiting people who aren't on the watchlists, and simply not caring. Where is the deterrence effect of having the fingerprints on record of a suicide bomber who kills him- or herself carrying out a mission? Isn't that the stated modus operandi of the people that this program is supposedly designed to catch/deter/inconvenience? Tell me how much money we've spent... and does the government even have a public working definition of "terrorist"? Moreover, they're not monitoring people leaving the country, so I don't really see how this would help stop someone who's fleeing. Granted, I'm not saying they should do that either, because that would be even more invasive, again for marginal utility. I doubt it. My assumption would be that any “serious terrorist” would have several ways to get around this, including false fingerprints, recruiting people who aren’t on the watchlists, and simply not caring.

Where is the deterrence effect of having the fingerprints on record of a suicide bomber who kills him- or herself carrying out a mission? Isn’t that the stated modus operandi of the people that this program is supposedly designed to catch/deter/inconvenience? Tell me how much money we’ve spent… and does the government even have a public working definition of “terrorist”?

Moreover, they’re not monitoring people leaving the country, so I don’t really see how this would help stop someone who’s fleeing. Granted, I’m not saying they should do that either, because that would be even more invasive, again for marginal utility.

]]> By: Marty http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-685 Marty Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:52:04 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-685 Just curious -- anyone know how many bombs have been discovered by those new (and very expensive) bomb screening devices? I wonder how many were deterred.... Just curious — anyone know how many bombs have been discovered by those new (and very expensive) bomb screening devices?

I wonder how many were deterred….

]]> By: Marty http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-684 Marty Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:50:38 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-684 Again you can call me naive, but i think any "serious terrorist" would think twice about walking through any gate that required him to be fingerprinted. Again you can call me naive, but i think any “serious terrorist” would think twice about walking through any gate that required him to be fingerprinted.

]]> By: adam http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-683 adam Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:33:38 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-683 I don't see any tigers around... want to buy this tiger-repelling rock? It keeps tigers away. You know you want it. There some good discussion about deterrence in the comments of the post I linked to. The main point seems to be that no serious terrorist would ever be deterred by anything as silly as this and that the deterrence factor in driving legitimate people away from this country has cost us far more than has been saved here. Security is a tradeoff, and this isn't a good one. How many more intelligence agents would $15 billion buy? How about better bomb screening equipment? Detectives on the street? But as we're finding, the government's idea of security is massively invasive, extremely expensive systems that have tangible secondary costs and provide marginal demonstrable utility. I don't think I've ever even seen a justification of what exactly this is supposed to prevent. I don’t see any tigers around… want to buy this tiger-repelling rock? It keeps tigers away. You know you want it.

There some good discussion about deterrence in the comments of the post I linked to. The main point seems to be that no serious terrorist would ever be deterred by anything as silly as this and that the deterrence factor in driving legitimate people away from this country has cost us far more than has been saved here.

Security is a tradeoff, and this isn’t a good one. How many more intelligence agents would $15 billion buy? How about better bomb screening equipment? Detectives on the street? But as we’re finding, the government’s idea of security is massively invasive, extremely expensive systems that have tangible secondary costs and provide marginal demonstrable utility.

I don’t think I’ve ever even seen a justification of what exactly this is supposed to prevent.

]]> By: Marty http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-682 Marty Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:47:47 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-682 How many known terrorists were deterred from even trying? How many known terrorists were deterred from even trying?

]]> By: /pd http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/comment-page-1/#comment-678 /pd Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:11:05 +0000 http://www.aquick.org/blog/2006/02/01/us-visit-approximate-costs-15m-per-criminal/#comment-678 yeah dont forget the mulitple alert systems which were all false alarms !! yeah dont forget the mulitple alert systems which were all false alarms !!

]]>