There are some other interesting tit-bits in this article.
- A similar scheme for non-nationals entering the EU is already in operation. Funny that Jon didn't mention this when he detailed what it's like for an American entering Ireland. I wonder if (a) Ireland is not involved in this process - not really possible unless (b) it doesn't apply to the US & Canada and other "first-world" nations (and, since Ireland has no direct flights from Africa, S. America or elsewhere, Ireland doesn't have to be involved in this process).
- The spokesman for the Data Protection Commission acknowledges that the EU body has no jurisdiction over what happens within the US. That doesn't stop him from declaring "If the fingerprints are for the purpose of confirming entry to the US and then again on departure, and that is the only reason, then they should be deleted". Again, I say, nobody is forcing anyone from the EU to go to the US. When you arrive as a visitor in America, YOU ARE A GUEST. YOU LIVE BY THE RULES OF YOUR HOST. Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp? Besides, the purpose of the fingerprints is to enhance US security. It seems obvious to me that you would want to retain information if only to be able to check if (or when) someone you're suspicious of has previously entered the country. I'm not sure you'd need to retain such information for 75 years, 25 would probably do, but I'm not worried about it either.
