|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 2 November 2003 |
 |
|
 |
News |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Is fingerprinting of US-bound visitors justifiable ? by P. Krishnaswamy Academics and senior politicians described Washington decision to fingerprint all visitors to the U.S. at all airports and seaports at the time of disembarkation as 'having a stigma to it' and cautioned against such immediate action by the U.S. Nevertheless, many of them also admitted that in the context of that country's security concerns and the fact that they were fighting terrorism, it was 'justifiable'. The US Embassy in Colombo in a press release revealed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) new procedures that require most visitors bound to the United States to have two fingerprints scanned by an inkless device and a digital photograph taken upon entry at U.S. air and seaports. The procedures effective from January 5, 2004 is described as a 'dramatic step forward in increasing security in the modern history of immigration". Excerpts of the views of the academics and a senior politician: Professor C. Suriyakumaran: "Naturally there is a stigma. There has been a 'sea change' in the movements of peoples all over the world. One can understand the reason for the U.S. action. Simply having a reason does not automatically justify facilitating action. In quite another sense, while the good people get fingerprinted, those very, very few they want to target would have already gone through to the U.S., and will continue do so. I, personally, as a former senior UN international and visiting professor of the London School of Economics, among other things, would caution against such immediate action by the U.S. A settlement on Iraq and Palestine issue will block more loopholes than all the thumbprints can do." Jehan Perera, Media Director, National Peace Council: "Obviously fingerprinting is done when there is a strong suspicion against someone or when someone is taken for questioning. Therefore, fingerprinting visitors to a country is obnoxious. But the world is changing rapidly and there is more use of high technology, much more for bad purposes than good. The U.S. is implementing this fingerprinting for their own security concerns. It can be considered 'justifiable' since it is to be done in the case of all persons entering that country, unlike the British system which is being done as a pilot project in the case of Sri Lankans only." Dr. Sarath Amunugama, M.P. PA spokesman: "The fingerprinting system to be introduced by the U.S. applies to everyone throughout the world. In the light of the fact that the U.S. is fighting terror and terrorism, there is no use expressing any displeasure over it." Meanwhile, the Acting Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sarala Fernando, when contacted for her comments said that 'it was an internal matter of the U.S. and she could not comment on it'. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
