ALF is the Animal Liberation Front. But I didn’t think they were only an American group.
And as a Canadian, I wouldn’t mind the newer id cards, I don’t see the big deal.
This seems like a bit of an exaggeration of what’s actually in the Patriot Act?
The closest thing to a cite I could get was Sec. 414a(1)(A), which says they should really work on implementing a law that was passed back in 1996 that said to set up this system (18 USC 1365a). This law is where the dates come from. Then I suppose the id card part comes from the Patriot act where they say they should focus on “the utilization of biometric data” and “the development of tamper-resistant documents readable at ports of entry” in developing this system. But that’s not a requirement in any sense of the word.
As a Canadian who just spent $95 (cdn) on a new passport (which doesn’t come with biometric info) I can see some of the big deal. How much is this nifty keen new biometric ID going to cost to obtain or renew? And why is the solution to a leaky border to make the people crossing the border jump through more and expensive hoops when, as SmackFu, Harli, and Ruby seem to suggest, the border guards already in place aren’t doing their jobs?
Wow… a mention of my hometown! 
Anyway, I had a ticket to fly from Ottawa to “the Soo” (SSMarie) on Sept 11/01. Obviously I didn’t make it. But on the 13th when I did fly home, we flew over US airspace. (Surprise #1) When my sister and I went across the border to go clubbing in MI there was a marine/army type guy who looked in our trunk. Last time I was in the Soo we crossed the border again and this time were jsut waved through. No names, ID, anything. If the commerce going into the States from Canada (at least in the Soo) were slowed down by border checks that took hours to make it across rather than minutes, I think you would find that a good 30% of the American Soo’s economy would go down the tubes. (I pulled that number out of my ass, but I am willing to bet alot that the real percentage is VERY significant.) I would imagine that there are countless border crossings liek this where one side depends on the other for a good chunk of their economy that comes from day trippers.
Actually, to be honest about it, I don’t think these super-id’s will exist for a long time, if ever. I just felt like pointing out the obvious, if haphazard, benefit.
Maybe they won’t exist for some time. But if they don’t then come 2005, people won’t be able to get into the US. The original article linked above states that the act has been passed.
and that
CBC.ca is not some fluffy site, that is real news on there.
As a Canadian, my take on it is this:
The last thing our government needs is another costly bureaucracy to implement.
Is the cost actually going to result in an improved level of security commensurate with the cost? That is, will we be getting our money’s worth of terrorism-deterring?
If the cost runs into the billions (which seems not at all unlikely, given the high costs of the gun-registry program), would it not be better to use that money on other security measures that do not have troubling civil-liberty implications - like paying for more border guards, and paying them a salary sufficient to keep them keen and alert?
I am unimpressed with technological solutions to the percieved problem. How can we be certain that, after spending (potentially) billions of dollars on this one solution, somebody does not figure out a relatively cheap and easy way to counterfit or otherwise fool the system?
I think the smarter money is on more guards, paying more attention.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**- Ehhh… iffy. He was a probably a bit nuts.
- Fer crying out louf, this man was nuttier than a fruitcake.
[QUOTE]
Isn’t that precisely the point?
Ehh, as a Canadian, I don’t care.
Care to elaborate on this brilliant insight of yours?
Before you bring anything up about hijackers, remember they made into the US past US border patrol.
Maybe so, but it is inaccurate news. HR 3162 (The Patriot Act) does not require Canadians to have biometric info on ID cards.
Repeat: The Patriot Act does not require Canadians (or anyone else) to have biometric info on ID cards.
The section in question is this, it seems:
Much of this rests on what Section 110 of the IIRIRA is:
In other words, you aren’t required to have biometric info on your passport, but when you present your passport for entry into the country, your fingerprint will be electronically recorded along with your info from your passport and indexed. When you leave, your information will be updated to show that you have left.
Nothing really that sinister or hard about it. Especially since it is just encouraging the development of this system, but isn’t mandating an implementation time.
Much ado about nothing.
And some of us appreciate a little thing called “liberty”. If things keep going at the rate they seem to be now, it’s going to reach a point where I don’t think it would be much of a life any more.
Maybe you’ll be happy living in some 1984esque state where everyone is safe because no one can do anything, but I wouldn’t be.
My biometric (it’s a noun?) information being held by my government. No one is allowed to have my fingerprints until I¡¦m charged with a crime, same here. And I’ll second Malthus’ concerns on a Canadian bureaucracy oozing out of the budget for this one.
I object even more strongly to a foreign government holding onto my person identifiers. At least with my own government I can lobby for the destruction of the program. What guarantees do I get from the foreign government that it will not be abused? What recourse do I have if it is misused?
A passport is not equivalent in this instance. A passport remains the property of the issuing government. This biometric ID has my personal property imbedded within it? What right does anyone have to deprive me of that personal property?
I’m likely overreacting; it was the CBC that reported it.
Sorry, but it’s like entering a concert. You want to come to the US’s party, you have to accept their terms for entry.
If foreigners were being publically ritually sodomized by border guards, would they still have to like it or lump it? 
It seems that the US is forgetting a little thing called “international comity” - a presumption of reciprocity of treatment between friendly, foreign states.
Naturally, an argument can be made that the terrorist threat overrides such niceties - but at least it would be nice to get an acknowledgement that such an argument is required, not just “we can do what we want to foreign visitors”.
The Canadians can’t do anything…lest we steal the rest of their hockey teams and give them to places like North Carolina and allow them to go to the Stanley Cup finals. Mwahahaha.
The article says this is only something they’re brainstorming, tossing around, running up the flagpole to see who salutes. It’s not a done deal yet, by no means.
And, last but not least:
Seems to me the whole issue is still wayyyy up in the air.
By changing the way we do things, we let the terrorists win.
So what do you call this guy?
If you need more convincing, just check out this google search on Ahmed Ressam
It also states as a fact that:
So, because one terror dude tried to cross the border and got caught - a border between the two friendliest countries on earth has to become sealed?
I think that in the future, people are going to look back at this time and say, “wow! there was a whole lot of overreaction going on - with the US government determined to show domestic “action” over terrorism, even though the actions were mostly symbolic. In fact, the measures taken during this time caused massive inconvenience to all, and eroded those civil liberties which Americans were justifiably proud of, without reducing the threat of terrorism much”.
Canada offers a convienient scapegoat for US anxieties - witness Hillary Clinton’s humiliating (for her) rant on the topic of the security threat posed by Canada triggered by the mystery five - only to eat her words when the “incident” turned out to be a false alarm.
Easier to blame foreigners than to admit that, basically, preventing terrorism is very difficult and there is no certainty that any amount of increased security will prevent it. If drug smugglers can continue to import literally tons of drugs into the US despite billions of dollars spent to prevent just that, what are the chances of preventing terrorists from smuggling bombs, germs or poison in? Spending more billions, or imposing humiliating identity requirements, or further eroding civil liberties - nothing will ensure safety, whereas the costs of all of these things (tangible and otherwise) is all too certain.
What is required is objective thinking. Decide how many resources will be available to protect the country from terrorism, and allocate those resources wisely.