Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

Abu Dhabi: Residency departments across the country will manage a fingerprint identification system and database for all residents in the country, a senior official said on Wednesday..........

http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Immigrat ... 33816.html

In a business and tourism hub. It makes sense.

Cant disagree with that, as long as the stuff is not misused.

It may lead to problems, e.g. a robbery occurs in a mall, and all people with fingerprints on the store's door are rounded up......even though 49 out of 50 were customers..

BlackburnRovers wrote:Cant disagree with that, as long as the stuff is not misused.

It may lead to problems, e.g. a robbery occurs in a mall, and all people with fingerprints on the store's door are rounded up......even though 49 out of 50 were customers..

Never heard of such a strange thing happening. But biometric data is also recorded for many other purposes.

Why not go the whole hog and take a DNA sample as well ?

Damn, be done with it and slap in a microchip with an RFID tag that holds all biometric data ......

.... like cattle ....

Then all "guests" can be tracked realtime on their monitored mobile phones, access controlled email and fined if required for oversleeping. Think of the revenue possibilities

viking-warrior wrote:Why not go the whole hog and take a DNA sample as well ?

Damn, be done with it and slap in a microchip with an RFID tag that holds all biometric data ......

.... like cattle ....

Then all "guests" can be tracked realtime on their monitored mobile phones, access controlled email and fined if required for oversleeping. Think of the revenue possibilities

Let's think of it in a very positive way. Fingerprints and other biometric data can save your life, save you a jail term or even a lethal injection.

Let's not hang blindly on the privacy issue.

It's the possible abuses of the system that are more important. You could justify just about anything by ignoring its possible adverse effects.

Speedhump wrote:It's the possible abuses of the system that are more important. You could justify just about anything by ignoring its possible adverse effects.

Take the web as an example, should all the cyber crimes - hacking, personal data theft, extracting sensitive military data as happened 2 weeks ago, child p0rn...- be reasons to stop the internet service?

Every system has merits and demerits. it's what weighs more that matters.

Thanks for that M79, yes the internet is a good example

I totally agree with policing of the Internet and bringing the full force of the law down on the heads of thieves and kiddie fiddlers

BUT

It has to be carried out and enforced by an impartial, educated, reliable, incorruptable body with all the proper checks and controls in place.

Every system needs its checks and balances in order that the odd "blind eye" is not turned.

This level of information is open to abuse in any society where abuse of the system and due process is prevalent.

Metaphor79 wrote:

Speedhump wrote:It's the possible abuses of the system that are more important. You could justify just about anything by ignoring its possible adverse effects.

Take the web as an example, should all the cyber crimes - hacking, personal data theft, extracting sensitive military data as happened 2 weeks ago, child p0rn...- be reasons to stop the internet service?

Every system has merits and demerits. it's what weighs more that matters.

That's disingenous, the internet per se is a worldwide unorganised collection of computers, it is not a organised system of information collection/distribution controlled by any one body or even country.

Yes there should be some control over internet content, and there is, to hugely varying degrees in different countries, and of course almost completely unenforcable across more than one national boundary without a huge expense of manpower, money and legal requirements. The service providers should not be held accountable for content though, however you can understand if they decide to filter certain types of content for a variety of reasons.

But there is no real comparison between that and the collection of excessive amounts of personal information by a country's governmental body. IMO.

Still, try and stop them.

This is nothing new, anyone who gets a residency visa in this country has to go to the police station and have their fingers prints done, they've been doing this for years already.

Chocoholic wrote:This is nothing new, anyone who gets a residency visa in this country has to go to the police station and have their fingers prints done, they've been doing this for years already.

It's part of a full biometric identity system. And probably to be shared across the emirates also.

Hardly the same.

The best thing they can do is get rid of all the illegal trash that is here operating in the market, I am all for these measures.

finger prints better than 2 have EYE print..

Both same intrusion of privacy, but eye scan is not so useful when you are trying to hunt killers and thieves though

the thing is that u go blind and still they r checking if its clear or not.

its like open ur eye widely,, go r right a little ,, to left,,, is it lenses or ur eyes..........

sounds like a retina scan, not iris scan....

Chocoholic wrote:This is nothing new, anyone who gets a residency visa in this country has to go to the police station and have their fingers prints done, they've been doing this for years already.

Really?????????, Chocs I have honestly never had this done or been requested to do so.

Chocoholic wrote:This is nothing new, anyone who gets a residency visa in this country has to go to the police station and have their fingers prints done, they've been doing this for years already.

which is "this" country.. never been thro this in UAE.. this is news to me

Chocoholic wrote:This is nothing new, anyone who gets a residency visa in this country has to go to the police station and have their fingers prints done, they've been doing this for years already.

Well that's cr@p! Where do you pull this stuff from?

sage & onion wrote:The best thing they can do is get rid of all the illegal trash that is here operating in the market, I am all for these measures.

biometric data collection is to control and document people, it is not to control "illegal trash" who obviously got through the borders and are not going to check in at the police station later to be fingerprinted.
it is totally new to me, i never got fingerprinted of had my eyes scanned, and i am against it outside democratic countries.

XPClone wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:This is nothing new, anyone who gets a residency visa in this country has to go to the police station and have their fingers prints done, they've been doing this for years already.

Well that's cr@p! Where do you pull this stuff from?

From her magic hat where she pulls all the rest of her crap from.

Bora, you are starting again in another thread.

My bad.

But you have to admit, the process mentioned does not take place and has never taken place in Dubai.

I'd clip your claws if I didn't like the way they hurt on my back...

Speedhump wrote:I'd clip your claws if I didn't like the way they hurt on my back...

Filing them down as we speak.

capsicum wrote:

sage & onion wrote:The best thing they can do is get rid of all the illegal trash that is here operating in the market, I am all for these measures.

biometric data collection is to control and document people, it is not to control "illegal trash" who obviously got through the borders and are not going to check in at the police station later to be fingerprinted.
it is totally new to me, i never got fingerprinted of had my eyes scanned, and i am against it outside democratic countries.

For your information their is a lot of illegal trash in the market that came through the legal borders, they are bothersome and affect the way business is done here.

I think capsicum meant that the collecting of unreasonable amounts of personal data on law abiding folks does not affect the illegal immigrants and the black market business you are talking about.

As banning handgun ownership in the UK doesn't stop criminals owning them, it is just an infringement of the personal liberties of law abiding folk who had licenses and only used them for recreation at shooting clubs (just an example).

I don't see why he is actually in favour of it in democratically run countries though. The concept of personal freedoms and liberties and their protection surely is borderless.