Terminal 5 fingerprinting breaches data laws

[TonyGosling]

Terminal Five chaos threat over fingerprint plan: Commissioner tells passengers to protest at security measures
By JASON LEWIS 22nd March 2008

The opening of Heathrow's new Terminal 5 was under threat last night after its management was warned that a plan to fingerprint passengers may be illegal.

The £4.3billion terminal is due to open on Thursday. But the Information Commissioner has told Spanish-owned airport operator BAA that its plan to fingerprint all passengers may breach the Data Protection Act.

The Commissioner's office says passengers ordered to give their prints should do so "under protest" and that such a scheme would normally be considered "intrusive". It has launched an investigation into whether BAA "took account of the data protection implications of its proposal".

Unless Heathrow provides evidence that the move is necessary, the Commissioner has the power to order it to stop fingerprinting passengers or face legal action...........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

[alwun]

'they' say that the data aquisition(or theft) is required to ensure that domestic and international passengers do not swap identities at that time when they are 'airside' By 'airside' they now not only mean beyond the check-in and customs, but also included in 'airside' is their f*kn great shopping mall. The urgency then, by design, has been to allow all of the captive passenger shoppers to access the mall. Should this allow domestics and internationals the opportunity to change places or faces - hey too bad - we need them all in the shop.
However there's a silver lining to all this. The security services can accelerate their national ID data base via forcing domestic passengers to give up their data so that they can then shop till they fly as well as helping the homeland security apparatus.

I say this terminal design has nothing to do with me, and if it allows this troublesome commingling of sentient beings, you the designer can sort it out. You don't get my fingerprints if I want to fly to Manchester - which is what is being demanded now.

cheers Al..

[fish5133]

Is it traditional fingerprinting or scanning? Wonder what the effect of a bit of pritt the sticky stuff or a smear of jam from a greasy donut would have on the fingerprinting apparatus.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a comment on the story from the Mail's web page.

There is a real danger these days of terrorist activities,fake passports etc. and surely this measure would help reduce this risk. I am all for any measures taken for security reasons and those that don't like it should stay at home----and keep their mouths shut!

- Christina Crosbie, Lesmahagow Scotland

You see this, (the above), is the mentality of the sad brain washed multitude, hiding under their beds from the bearded Muslims who want to convert them to Islam, after blowing themselves up, and forcing their women to grow beards and wear a burka.

So because we don't want to give up our liberties as *free* citizens and accept the conditions of the gulag, we should now "stay at home".

I find these kinds of comments difficult and distressing to read actually. I mean, surely this person is paid to write this. Surely there can't be anyone out there who would freely think along these lines, can there?

[TonyGosling]

BAA jettisons plans to fingerprint passengers at Heathrow Terminal 5
26/03/08 - News section

Heathrow owner BAA will not take fingerprints of passengers using the £4.3billion Terminal 5 which opens today. It has decided to ditch its proposal because of doubts about the legality of such a move.



BAA had hoped to fingerprint passengers on all domestic flights and those changing from international to domestic flights from T5 when it opened. But the Information Commissioner's office was concerned the fingerprinting could breach the Data Protection Act.........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

[Ravenmoon]

Nigel Rumfitt QC, terrorism specialist, explains why he is opposed to compulsory fingerprinting at Heathrow.

Getty
Everyone using the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow for domestic flights will have to be fingerprinted. Who says so? Not Parliament. The British Airports Authority, a Spanish-owned private company, and British Airways say so. Why? It's a government requirement, they tell us. But in free societies, government requirements come in the form of laws. Who made the requirement, when and in what terms?

Fingerprinting has been around for more than 100 years. In this country it has been used only to catch and identify criminals. No doubt that is why it carries a stigma. Compulsory mass fingerprinting is regarded as "unBritish", but the present Government seems determined to change our attitude.

A few years ago, with little publicity, the law was altered to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprints and DNA taken from suspects later acquitted or even released without charge. Police powers of arrest have been extended recently, allowing the more widespread obtaining of this data. Nonetheless, the Government has not yet dared to make mass fingerprinting compulsory. What this Government fears to do openly it tries to do by stealth.

Because you cannot be compelled to provide your fingerprints, both BAA and British Airways are saying that by choosing to fly through Terminal 5 you are "consenting" to the taking of your prints. That is disingenuous, to put it mildly. True, some people will not mind; others will object, but will not be prepared to abandon an important journey in order to register that objection. In practice, and without legislation, we will have become a nation that restricts the internal movement of its citizens by government decree.

Imagine how people would have reacted in the 1950s to the proposition that before boarding the Flying Scotsman at King's Cross you had to provide your fingerprints because the Home Secretary thought it a good idea.

These measures, it is said, will protect us against terrorism. That is nonsense. Modern Islamist terrorists want the world to know who they are. That's why they make video wills to show everyone exactly who has been martyred for the cause. Would any recent terrorist outrage have been prevented by ID cards or fingerprint records? If it would, why bring in vital security measures by the back door and confine them to domestic flights?
Another danger is that, at Terminal 5, illegal immigrants can swap boarding passes with domestic passengers and get into the country unchecked. This is because greedy BAA wants all passengers – domestic and international – to mingle in the same shopping mall before flying.
If this is only about verifying identity at the gate, why take four prints and not just one? Why keep these prints on file for "only" 24 hours instead of destroying them at the gate? To what use will the prints be put in that time? The Data Protection Act, quoted by BAA, in fact allows police access to this material.
This is not about security. It is about paving the way towards the database state, making it easier to force us to "consent" to giving our fingerprints when we apply for a passport. That's the final step before the compulsory ID card.
I already refuse to visit the United States because of oppressive security and I have indicated to BAA that I shall refuse to provide fingerprints unless I can be satisfied that it has a legal right to demand them. If the law has been changed to allow BAA to behave in this way, I shall find another airline.

Nigel Rumfitt QC is a specialist in serious crime, including terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/83919 ... ed%27.html