The EU is about to sell our most sensitive data to the US for visa-free travel
edri.org
edri.org
There are two options: visa-free with the biometric data passing on the wire (no hassle), or visa (a major hassle) and biometric data passing in the airport (a minor one).
As a side note, the EU also collects photo and fingerprints from visitors now. Whereas in the US you only need to go through fingerprinting only once (or maybe "once per passport") and only on arrival, in the EU you need to go through it both on every arrival and every departure.
With that, I much prefer US immigration queues than EU immigration queues — as of 2026, my US times are much faster than my EU times.
The forgeries are rare, but they are also the people customs cares most about. Those people who are planning to commit a serious crime of some sort.
Edit: Every time I share my border stories I get accused of lying or having done something wrong. I have much much crazier ones. No one believes it until it happens to them. Count yourself lucky if you've never been strip searched or imprisoned by these psychopaths, any belief they are reasonable are formed because you were lucky and have a naïve sort of optimism that if you do everything right it won't happen to you.
This seems extremely unlikely to me. Did you stand in the noncitizens line by mistake?
I've been routinely grilled and extensively searched many times just crossing between the U.S. and Canada - the most hilarious instance being when I was crossing from Yukon Territory back to Alaska some 10 years ago.
In Latin America, things are considerably more professional, and the government officials don't act like they hate you and just want you to go away. Europe's fine too.
Depends. Someone I know had a terrible experience crossing into Belize on a land border. Was held there for two hours while they "verified" something. Seemed like a power-tripping agent.
I was traveling as part of a party of five (different travel dates, separate ETA filings, no apparent connection). One of us didn't get an ETA. Another got one just before the trip (and it was a 13-year-old child). The rest of us got ours immediately, but I was questioned at the border for 10+ minutes with no apparent reason, and then allowed in without a comment.
I agree with you that US citizens aren't supposed to be fingerprinted on entry, but I am absolutely unsurprised that it happens sometimes.
Yay for our AI overlords or something?
This is a marked contrast to the rest of our immigration, border patrol, and airline security people who are lazy and needlessly aggro as a rule.
But if you asked me to trade the passport check experience of entering the US with the experiences I’ve had trying to get into France or Germany I’d pick the US hands down. Especially Frankfurt. WTF are they doing over there?
Not to say they don't make mistakes or don't fully read/understand their systems. A co-worker was former LEO, had his id stolen at that time. We were traveling back from an a vendor site across the border, the border agent misunderstood the system alert from "double check this guys docs to make sure he is who he says he is" to "Anyone using this id is traveling under a false name!" So he got held and questioned, called his former supervisor, CPB supervisor came and showed him how to get a travel redress number.
Amusingly, since we were traveling together, I got his luggage off the carousel and kept it with me as I watched them question him. After some time they decided to look at his bags and came looking for them, I told them I had them and he was with me. They took the bags and didn't even want to speak with me.
False. CBP is well known as bottom rung in terms of hiring of federal LEO and an employer of last resorts. For example, one of the most prestigious is the Marshals Service, and for instance HSI is typically far closer to "average" or above than CBP is. If you're dealing with something like a DEA or FBI agent that is roughly 'average' and CBP you are roughly dealing with the 'moron' end and roughly the professional and intelligence opposite of the Marshals.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passports_of_the_European_Unio...
When passports are valid for 10 years there is always a bit of inertia.
In fact, you have to do it twice; once to apply and once to receive it.
In Poland at least, the queues are often a few weeks long, and you have to book online in advance. If it's summer season and you need to travel soon, you usually have to go to some office in Buttfuckville at the other end of the country to get a reasonable date. Passport office hunting is an established practice for people who need one ASAP.
If you're a kid, both of your parents need to be present with you at the appointment at the same time, so they have to coordinate time off work. The fun begins if they're divorced and one lives in a different country.
At least, unlike in the UK/US, the process itself is pretty painless. I got mine just after I turned 18 (see above), and all I really needed to do was to go there, bring my ID, fill a single form and give them the fingerprints.
Edit apparently some but not all EU passports do, which is weird.
Edit: seems like Ireland is the odd one out (Danemark could, but seems to fingerprint).
Others I imagine issue both types of passports and that's why some people are fingerprinted more often.
Once for each arrival.
Sometimes they rely on just image matching, and sometimes they ask for an additional finger scan ( but not normally all fingers of all hands like first registration ).
So perhaps if you have a generic looking face, or have changed your appearance since the first visit you are more likely to be fingerprinted.
The TSA agent asked me the usual questions about where I was staying, how long I was staying, I replied, and despite having printed just about everything out, he just waved me through.
The closest I got was a "random inspection" in an airport, and the TSA agents asked for our passports and to go through our luggage, but as soon as we flashed our Danish passports they lost all interest and just waved us through.
Then you're American as far as they're concerned. Citizenship isn't something you can tell at a glance or determine by measuring a person.
I haven't been to the EU in a decade, but last time I was there I was standing in the customs line for non-EU residents and someone official saw my US passport in hand and directed me to the much shorter/faster EU citizens line. I walked right through customs without being checked at all.
When a guy started chasing after me 30 seconds later I realized my assumption was wrong. But there really wasn't a way to know.
I've had my fingerprints taken every time I've been to the US, although not always all the fingers every time, presumably on subsequent visits if you have passport + right hand matches, they don't bother scanning left hand or thumbs.
I've certainly had the full scan on multiple occasions though.
Things have changed in the last 10 years. I recalled from 2016, while some countries like Sweden were super strict about entry/departure (lady manually counted number of days on passport) others had been so lax it was comical: France would take one quick glance at you and stamp the passport, Ireland would at least test if you could answer a simple question with the stamp already pre positioned on the passport upon answering said question.
I presume this electronic system finally accounts for all of these differences and provides a minimum standard for exit/entry. Now it being digitized there is no wiggle room on exit/entry. Frankly with how lousy US exit/entry seems for foreigners, I don't mind the EU wanting to maintain strict standards for visitors to their borders as well. I wouldn't even mind them being extra rough on us Americans. Its totally understandable. Preferably take all the US diplomat passports to a back room as well while they are at it.
Yes. Because the primary issue is it was too easy to fly under the radar once you were in the Schengen zone.
Also in 2026 there are security threats which means tighter borders is a necessity.
Clearly in 2026, the easiest way to achieve compliance at all Schengen borders accross 29 countries is to digitise it, including biometrics.
Yes, to put it politely, there have been "teething issues" in its implementation. But given the sheer scale of the change, that is only to be expected. I think any of us working in tech would agree that it would be delusional to think such a thing would be perfect from day zero.
"The automated query can be based on: * Identity information included in the application or in travel documents, such as name, date of birth, national ID number, and/or * the fingerprint of an individual."
Sounds like they could send requests to that computer system just based on publicly available information on a person like name and date of birth, even if the person never applied for a visa or tried to enter the US.
But yeah, it does sound that way, but certainly not clear cut to me what the situation is. I.e. does the agreement involve clauses about what to do if this is abused? Do we have a way to detect if theyre using this on non-travellers? Etc.
It's not clear how it is supposed to work in detail. But it sounds like it could be implemented in a way that makes illegitimate queries possible. It doesn't sound like they want to really ensure that you can catch those.
A couple of counterexamples:
Italy's "fiscal code" is generated with a simple algorithm which can be executed manually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fiscal_code
Sweden's "personal identity number" is public information and can be looked up by anyone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_number_(Swed...
This also means a person’s Belgian RRN can change.
IMHO this level of tracking ain't worth the safety gained. Seems like safety gain is just the excuse at this point.
This is clearly ridiculous and not in any way connected to the reason passports exist. It's just purely bureaucratic tyranny.
Even the stated goal of "preventing people from running away to other countries" doesn't work, because the USA doesn't have border service check the passport _on leaving_ the country.
Virtually every time I go to Mexico, I'm one of very small % with passport going either direction.
* This is debated and some questionable court cases that actually protected rights of indigenous Mexicans to travel are cited as reasons why this constitutional provision isn't in effect (even though the case was clearly written to protect indigenous rather than justify overthrowing the constitution), but go to a land border with Mexico and 9 of 10 times I find they follow the constitution and don't check passport.
Not asking whether "reducing state capacity" helps with that. Asking how's that "reducing" going.
The USA has one of the biggest and most convoluted systems of government in the world, one of the only few where people actually need lawyers to navigate it.
Government getting in the way is useful when it impedes other parts of government.
We're definitely going in the wrong direction, but it's been slower than Russia, Turkey, Austria, and others which are following well-worn paths. And the consequences for the world are so much worse if it happens in America.
And what stops the US from mandating that States provide their citizens with a universal ID of an agreed form? Just like with the elections?
You might consider it part of the Anglosphere mentality as Canada, the US, Australia, the Bahamas, and New Zealand don't have national ID.
I've never understood the problem that RealID is supposed to solve.
How is it TSA can accept a Veteran Health Identification Card or photo identification card issued by a federally recognized tribe, and the passports from every country in the world, but not a state-issued ID which is not REAL ID-compliant?
They can only accept them before IDs are implemented of course, as a poor substitute. After national id documents are standardised, it's just them, nothing else counts.
Guaranteed in the sense that (a) it's available instantly, (b) everyone _has to_ accept it, because it's universal.
So you don't have keep paid utility bills with your address, just show your ID card. You don't have to "register as a voter" ever again, just show your ID before getting a ballot.
If you are worried that your tenant might happen to be an illegal migrant, and would risk being deported instead of paying rent next month, just make him show an ID before signing a rental agreement.
How does Real ID guarantee (1), (3), or (4) better than the state-issued non-Real IDs?
Places are not required to accept all Real IDs as proof of age. A bar, for example, may reject out-of-state ids for proof of age for those who look under 25.
Real ID does not prove citizenship (2). Non-citizen residents may have Real ID.
If a Canadian claims to be a snowbird tourist and wants to rent your guest house for five months, and you are worried that he might happen to be an illegal migrant and would risk being deported instead of paying rent next month, how does Real ID help?
He has no Real ID, only Canadian ID.
Note also that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin. Landlords must provide equal opportunities regardless of nationality or immigration status.
Your proposed scenario seems like it breaks anti-discrimination law.
Even better, if that person shows you a valid tribal id from a federally recognized tribe, but which is not Real ID compliant, will you rent to him? The feds consider it a valid alternative to Real ID.
Yes, the system as you are describing it makes no sense.
>Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin
Maybe the USA is like this. I haven't and seen such an interpretation of "national origin" anywhere else in the world.
I have only ever heard the term "national origin" with respect to _citizens_. E.g. you were a Pakistani, married a Chinese took Chinese citizenship, you are a Chinese citizen, but your "national origin" is still Pakistani. Of course discrimination on the basis of something which is not in the documents is illegal. You are a Chinese no matter where you were born. But if you are born as Pakistani and are still a Pakistani, then the term "national origin" makes no sense.
>Your proposed scenario seems like it breaks anti-discrimination law.
Again, possibly the USA is unique in this respect. Where I live (as well as my previous country) the anti discrimination law is strict, but it only extends to the government institutions. And I'm finding it baffling that it may happen to be otherwise in other countries.
State universities cannot reject students based on race or sex. Buses must carry everyone regardless. Police must accept complains from all. Of course.
But prohibiting private people from freely exercising their basic rights of liking and disliking whoever they want (and consequently making or not making commercial agreements with them) is such a mind-blowing example of tyranny that it's hard to even imagine for my third-world brain.
I oppose Real ID because I don't understand the problem it's trying to solve, and it seems expensive and cumbersome for at least some.
Real ID is a US-only issue, so I interpreted "If you are worried that your tenant might happen to be an illegal migrant" in the US context.
In the US case, quoting https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination :
> National origin discrimination involves treating workers (applicants or employees) unfavorably or favorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).
> National origin discrimination can include preferring foreign workers, including workers with a particular visa status, over American workers.
> National origin discrimination also can involve treating people unfavorably because they are married to (or associated with) a person of a certain national origin.
In where you live, and where you used to live, a business can refuse service to a minority group? To indigenous people? What about to someone whose boyfriend is a member of a minority group?
You write 'exercising their basic rights of liking and disliking whoever they want (and consequently making or not making commercial agreements with them)'.
The "consequently" is doing some heavy lifting. In the US you have the basic rights of liking and disliking whoever you want. This is part of the freedom of assembly, which is the US way of saying the freedom of association.
Commercial agreements for services available to the public, however, are interpreted under different rules than private agreements. In the US you are free, under the law, to run a private club which refuses black people, Jewish people, women, and so one. These all exist.
However, if your club is open to the public, then you cannot discriminate on race, religion, or sex.
(Technically the US had federal civil rights laws, which under our federal system only apply to businesses large enough to nominally be involved in interstate commerce. However, state laws essentially extend this to everyone, with a few carve-outs for, for example, a women looking for a housemate and insisting they be another woman.)
Do you live in one of the handful of countries which are not signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination? Quoting from https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/cerd.pdf
"In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: ... The right to housing .. The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks."
Almost every third-world country is signatory, so it can't be some broad "third-world brain" viewpoint.
The right of access and the right to housing are not affected. The police will not evict a person of colour from a rented accommodation, and will not assist a shop owner with kicking out a person of colour from their shop.
But a right is not an entitlement. In order to rent a private room or buy something in a private shop, both parties should agree.
Again, quoting the convention, "equality before the law". A business owner is not a representative of the law. The police and the civil servants treat everyone equally.
>In where you live, and where you used to live, a business can refuse service to a minority group?
A private business can refuse anyone. That's because it is private. "The transaction is not seen as profitable." The most popular reason for refusal though is not race, origin, or citizenship, it's not having an app to pay for the service, because most small businesses don't bother accepting cash any more. The government is theoretically trying to deal with this issue by running propaganda campaigns "accept cash!", but I think the battle is lost.
>Real ID is a US-only issue, so I interpreted "If you are worried that your tenant might happen to be an illegal migrant" in the US context.
Yes, I got confused, apologies. I still don't see why the US cannot just issue passports to all citizens, and treat a passport as a universal ID (or mandate that all state-issued IDs be universally recognized), but it's unrelated to the "Real ID".
The US used to use this logic until around 1960. It was a horrible country, at least if you were black. Even if a white person wanted to offer housing to black people, the white person was discriminated against. Collective private action used to reinforce a white supremacist social structure.
That's why we needed laws to require public services be available without discrimination based on race, religion, and various other protected classes.
"A private business can refuse anyone. That's because it is private."
A business may be privately owned while doing business with the public. That is quite different than a privately owned business which operates a private club.
Furthermore, businesses are subject to regulations that private people do not have. This is clear in organization structures like a limited company, where the company is a recognized as being legally distinct from its owners. These companies exist only because the government says so, which means the government can control what they can or cannot do.
It's also clear in places like licensing, where someone cannot simply say "I am a medical doctor" and offer medical services, and in other regulations like food safety, where restaurants -- even privately owned ones -- are held to standards which people don't have when cooking for themselves.
But why would anybody do such a crazy thing? Such things just don't happen, unless it's a gynaecologist office, where men are generally not admitted.
Moreover, we have thousands of shops available. If a shop refuses a customer, they just lose money.
>Even if a white person wanted to offer housing to black people, the white person was discriminated against.
Again, we just don't have such a thing. Don't project your social issues upon us. You can rent or not rent out your flat out to anyone you want, nobody else's business.
>Collective private action used to reinforce a white supremacist social structure.
This is clearly illegal. But I don't see licensing as an answer to this. Just a decent police service is needed.
>It's also clear in places like licensing, where someone cannot simply say "I am a medical doctor"
Because in such cases a concluded transaction can cause non-financial damage to the sides of the said transaction.
It has nothing to do with the bargaining process.
If there is no transaction, there is nothing to discuss.
You have to bring in loads of other random documents to get a passport, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44408872
To reliably prove your age (e.g. in a store or a concert venue), you have to get a provisional driving license. If you are not qualified (maybe still disqualified to drive, or eyesight problems), tough luck, I'm not aware of any other government-issued photo ID in the UK. Foreigners previously had BRPs, but they are not issued since 2025, everything is electronic now.
There is also the "PASS" scheme where private providers (like banks) can issue plastic cards with photos, but I've heard they are regularly rejected by various venues as proof of age and/or identity, there is no legal requirement to accept them, just a recommendation. And I can imagine non-UK entities care about these about as much as they do about ISIC. TSA was definitely unhappy when I tried using ISIC about ten years ago for a US domestic flight.
Some people in the US take longer than that to get Real ID. Like, elderly black people born in the Jim Crow era where birth records simply weren't kept for them. https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-woman-says-she-ca... , or a missing 50-year-old marriage record - https://local12.com/news/nation-world/elderly-womans-real-id... .
Are you proving your age for a store or a concert venue for alcohol reasons? Don't people age out once they look over 25? Or do venues check for other reasons?
I've read about the big backlash when a national ID scheme for the UK is proposed, so I presume the benefits aren't all that high.
Like, when you check into a hotel, do you have to show ID? https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g186216-i15-k1095345... tells me that it's uncommon. While in the US, I nearly always have to show ID for an overnight room.
Or, in many place in the US, everyone is IDed for alcohol, even if you are 70 years old, which annoys a lot of people who are clearly old enough to drink. Even better, since US privacy laws are so poor, these ID checks also gather demographic information, identify 'high-value customers', and collaborate with other places to ban people -- rather like the facial recognition systems you all have in the UK.
Maybe Brits want to avoid normalizing more id checks?
"If you are unable to provide the required acceptable ID, such as a passport or REAL ID, you can pay a $45 fee to use TSA ConfirmID. TSA will then attempt to verify your identity so you can go through security; however, there is no guarantee TSA can do so."
From https://thepointsguy.com/news/tsa-security-with-confirmid/ :
"TSA agents pull you aside for secondary screenings and to verify your identity. ... After looking me up in his system, [the supervisor] asked me a series of questions only I could answer (previous addresses and that sort of thing)."
Sounds like RealID has other options for proving identity for non-citizens?
California actually issued RealIDs that weren't actually valid but they cancelled them and followed-up to re-issue them. If you look at the docs for the most recent time I didn't actually need to prove US citizenship (which I cannot do because I am not American - yet) https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Real_ID_Cancellation
Standard practice everywhere in Asia.
I’ve entered the US something like 150 times over 20 years. Visa free (ESTA) and on a B1 tourist visa.
I’ve been fingerprinted and photographed every single time.
there never is
It’s nice to go south to Alaska and see liquid water for 6 months of the year when we can’t.
The US passport holders get fingerprinted on entry only, as I’ve heard.
I don't care much about "verify that the passport is yours". For centuries, the person presenting the passport was supposed to be the owner of it, with their photo (aka "biometrics") as a proof. Comparing your passport picture with your face is what border controls have been doing since forever.
The fact that we leave fingerprints everywhere is hardly relevant, considering the costs of retrieving and storing them en masse are astronomical.
The licence plates on our cars are out in the open for everyone to see, and yet when a private company collects them and makes a searchable database out of it -- with locations and timestamps -- making it possible for anyone with access to build traceable paths of all of our movements since forever, it results in people getting enraged, and in my opinion justifiably so.
You absolutely don't. If you've done it once on your passport/ID you don't need to do it again. And infact there are fast track autonomous lanes that you can just scan your EU passport with biometric chip and fly through. (In theory, there's always idiots who don't realise they don't have it)
Recent changes to EES system have been a disaster, and as op has pointed out, people do have to scan their biometrics more than once coming from a non-EU country. In some cases even if you are a EU resident in case the airport has no specific queues.
How ?
> People do have to scan their biometrics more than once coming from a non-EU country.
If the data hasn't had time to propagate then it's just a flag that you need to do it.
> In some cases even if you are a EU resident in case the airport has no specific queues.
Yes, if I arrive in Firenze airport there is maybe 2 people working on the border, if I'm in the Schengen, I don't even need to be checked. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
> People without EU citizenship also enter EU.
Clearly I'm not talking about these cases. You're not from the EU, you need to follow the rules. Sorry.
Not much of a hassle at airports due to the availability of self-service kiosks, somewhat of a hassle when crossing with a car, and infuriatingly annoying when using a mass transit option like a bus or a train where everyone has to step outside and wait in line to do that, adding about 20-30 minutes to the border crossing.
They printed four of my fingers the first time (presumably for "collecting") and the same four fingers the second time (presumably for "verifying"), so it was the same procedure, taking the same time. Taking a picture of me also took the same time in both cases (I had to position myself in the frame "just right".)
With that, it should take the same time "collecting" from X people as it would "verifying" X people, and so the ratio of "first-time" visitors is irrelevant.
And then again at DUB outbound (US pre-clearance, so the normal Global Entry kiosk).
All of this was expected. The only thing that surprise me was there was no passport check or any other custom/immigration at Dublin on the inbound leg. We just walked from the arrival gate to the departure gate and that was that.
I once needed an actual stamp in my passport, and the agent literally apologized to me for taking up the space. I thought she might be messing with me, but not, entirely serious.
Pre clearance from the US means nothing for Ireland, it's also not Schengen.
> The only thing that surprise me was there was no passport check or any other custom/immigration at Dublin on the inbound leg.
Because you've done it on your outbound. Ireland is also a bit more relaxed, but at the same time they can randomely ask you for your papers.
> from the arrival gate to the departure gate
If you don't pass the control, if I'm not wrong you'll never need to be rechecked. The only place it has happened to me within EU was between Ireland -> Germany -> Greece. Probably because Ireland isn't Schengen
US passport holders only get fingerprinted on the arrival, as I’ve heard.
Does this also apply if you arrive by dinghy?
If you want to visit a hellhole, go through the hassle. But don't hand out all of our data just because you want to do joyrides.
BTW: Where, and when, those wars started is a splendid way for historians to spend an afternoon discussing.
The point is that after 1945, the US never stopped fighting wars all over the world, using euphemisms sometimes, sometimes slogans, but it always was war.
In the US there have been notorious mistakes of using biometrics to falsely recognize an unknown criminal. Does this happen in the EU too?
It's probably too late but we should try to get rid of this.
If the cops have a DNA Database, they "just" need to collect all DNA from a crime scene to compile a list of suspects, and by doing so, they're flipping the question of guilt around, you're no longer innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven innocent. You now have to prove you didn't "do it".
Veritasium had a nice video about this biometrics errors:
This my major concern with biometrics and DNA databases. It makes the cops lazy. "Subjects fingerprints and DNA was found on the crime scene, so he's clearly the murderer". That flips the evidence around, suddenly "I" have to prove I'm innocent as opposed to the law proving I'm guilty.
If you can simply collect all DNA and fingerprints from a crime scene, look it up in a database and compile a list of suspects, it also eliminates the possibility that the real perpetrator didn't leave DNA or fingerprints.
Sure, DNA has its use, like "here's the murder weapon, and it has the suspects DNA and fingerprints on it". It's not a guarantee, but it's a closer match.
As for "does that happen in Europe as well", unfortunately yes. There have been cases where the police have found fingerprints and DNA and announced they had the suspect they were looking for, only for said person to be cleared weeks or months later.
As a general rule, DNA and fingerprints cannot be the sole evidence in EU courts. The law will need find more evidence before they can convict you. Also, no death penalty, and "lifetime" in the EU is usually around 10 years, so not a lot of people are found innocent after 30 years.
This world is very depressing. I think this may be my last year on the planet.
Since US-issued visas are multiple entry for 10yrs, it's relatively not a hassle at all.
> US-issued visas are multiple entry for 10yrs
> it's relatively not a hassle at all
And for some passports in the last, say, six years, the probability is significantly increased. There is no official information as far as I know, just some anecdotical evidence from forums.
And before all of that you have to remember all your trips for the last 10 years to enter into DS-160 (you learn to keep a spreadsheet after the first time you do that, UK visas require that as well). And secure an appointment, which (since 2025) must happen in the country of your citizenship, or the country of your residence, which you should prove (sometimes it takes years to get residency documents in some EU countries). If you're unlucky, the waiting time for an appointment might be measured in years too. If you get a waiting time after all, sometimes there are just no appointments available whatsoever with no extra information.
Attending a company event is, of course, not a valid reason to get an expedited appointment. At least not that I've heard.
And I'm sure there are even more tricky things that I haven't heard of.
But don't be naive, clearly US is not pushing so strong on this feature that it is clearly not just to facilitate your travel and reduce processing time but because they know that they will be able to tap as a friser in the best biometric database of foreign citizens that they could.
And for the latter, what data are we talking about? If it's mostly fingerprints, don't those already get collected upon crossing the border? And can't they already be read from a passport's chip?
A reason I refused to go to Syria a couple of years ago. A colleague who did go said "oh I have a US (i) visa so I'm fine". I asked "how about in 20 years time when you've left a company which will pay for you to have a US visa. He hadn't considered that.
A friend of mine went to Libya on behalf of the US military about a decade ago. He is no longer eligible for a US esta and thus has to get a visa if he goes on holiday.
Last time I went to India I had to get a real visa which involved travelling to an office in London and waiting around for a couple of hours.
It's quite normal for people of "lesser powered" countries who don't have the power of passport that the US and Western European citizens do. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you would have to fly for hours to a major Russian city a couple of weeks in advance to apply for a visa to visit the UK.
When I went to Pakistan in 2010 it was even worse. Well until I gave up and then used a visa agency which just handled it all for me.
Last time I tried to go to India I went for an electronic visa, and after 7 days of "waiting" they updated it to say "declined". No explanation.
It's more for the airline than for you. If you have an ESTA and get refused entry, the airline isn't fined for bringing someone unauthorized to the border.
Nope
It's the same deal as you mention above
That's incorrect, holding a B1/B2 US visa only allows you to arrive at the port of entry, the actual permission to enter the country is always left to the border officer interviewing you
Commercial carriers such as airlines are also not allowed to transport people who need ESTAs/visas and do not have them to the US, so in practice it's relatively difficult to even get to the port of entry without a visa.
The visa is immaterial to the fine unless it conveys something beyond merely allowing you to present at a port of entry, which is allowed to basically everyone.
It states regarding a visa: "A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port-of-entry (generally an airport) and request permission to enter the United States. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at the port-of-entry have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States. "
The information you need to provide as an Iranian after a P1 visa is not remotely comparable to a British citizen after a B1 visa either.
Governments don't even have all this information about their own citizens reliably even if they wanted to hand it over.
A-1 and A-2 for example require almost nothing beyond a photograph, and a letter saying you’re travelling on behalf of your government.
ESTA is supposed to be a lower hurdle than a visa. But from what I've heard, approvals take longer and quite a few people get rejected.
Countries like to pretend they're still visa free, but honestly, it's just a pain in the ass and I'd rather they call it a visa. It's very, very easy to book a plane to a country, see all info indicating its visa free and you can just go, then right as you're about to head out, you decide to check for the 50th time just to be sure... and it turns out there's some "visa free process" for your country called EDtdjvubHHVJVF or some other random assortment of letters that involves a 2 hour application process and 24-72 hours (business days only) for approval results to come in. A visa would be preferable because it's more transparent.
The US is particularly bad as you need an ESTA to transit. I had a friend nearly caught out by that on a flight from London to Lima which involved changing in Miami. When changing plane from an international to international flight in most countries you get off a plane, maybe go through security, and then get on another plane. In the US this isn't a thing. You have to immigrate into the country for 20 minutes.
Obviously if you land at Heathrow and fly out of Manchester then sure you have to immigrate, but not at the same airport.
Same at Dubai and Qatar, Helsinki and Frankfurt, Singapore. and Seoul.
Indeed last time I transited Seoul I stayed in a hotel airside for 12 hours before my next flight.
This requires a Direct Airside Transit visa, unless you are a citizen of one of the exempt countries or have a visa/residence permit from certain countries (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Schengen). Applying for this visa involves going to the local visa processing centre, so it is not an online or on-arrival process, and takes around 3 weeks.
A US citizen flying New York to London to Egypt does not need to pay £20 for an ETA "visa waiver" to transfer in London. A UK citizen flying London to New York to Lima does need to pay for an ESTA
- with ESTA, your country of origin is "trusted" and individuals in general undergo a lower level of scrutiny at a US port of entry.
- with a VISA, you country of origin is "not trusted" and individuals are granted the right to travel to the US after they undergo interviews at an US embassy and get approved.
Neither is a right to enter the US. Just a right to be transported by air/ship to a US port of entry. If the CBP lets you in it is a different story.
This is the US version. Other countries have their own rules.
(And funnily enough the Visa lasts for a longer time)
This allows doing visa type checks but not technically violating the agreement as it's not called a visa.
In border security there are generally two camps, one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks, and generally makes travelling easy for the average person, and the other is like traditional cops using traditional tactics… the kind that will miss the person smuggling a kilogram of cocaine in their suitcase but will go after the old man who didn’t declare a pair of socks he bought on a trip. They generally make travel awful.
Support the intelligence-driven side of border security and reject the traditional cop camp.
It only works if the "intellence-driven security" is being developed in good faith.
It's good for security, it's more convenient than police doing police work.
Until it's not. Until it's hacked or abused as powerful mechanisms commonly are.
Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.
In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:
1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)
2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data
Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces
And let's be honest, that's not why "some" people are against them.
I have never advocated vandalism. I do advocate for oversight.
Well, there is a third camp. Israeli-style bio-social profiling of 100% of travelers.
That really makes travel awful !
Maybe this resonates in the American case where cops are notoriously undertrained and over-violent, but I gotta say it sounds extremely dystopian to me. All-power computerized control isn’t “intelligence”.
It’s also a false dichotomy. You can have lots of automation with humans in the loop. Humans can use automation to be faster and this is common.
History shows that the main question with government and data collection is not "what X makes life easier for citizens" but "who collects/uses X and for what purpose". In the happy case, this may be all well and peachy. The case people rightfully worry about is not that case.
Before that point, only passport information tuples should be queryable, i.e., "Is {passport number, name, dob, pob, issue date, expiry} valid?".
We should remember that the current (and likely future) administration is actively hostile to transgender and intersex people, and persecutes US citizens with changed gender identifiers. Discrimination based on ethnicity is only one Overton-lurch away.
Remember once the dataset is there, it is not ever going to go away, regardless of who is in power
Amazon shopping doesn't need a photo or fingerprints or date of birth.
I, a US citizen, got fingerprinted by passport control in Austria 2 weeks ago, and they took a picture of my face and asked for personal details. That's pretty much how passport control works universally in any developed country, only the "how they get the information" changes. Sometimes they already have it and sometimes they ask for it.
- Currently travelers to the US need to give biometric data each time they enter
- New DB connection between EU and US for this purpose
- People will _still_ need to give biometric data each time they enter in order to validate that they carry valid information
Further more, they claim that _the US_ will only request data from travelers. But, my country doesn't know if I travel and where. So the supposed privacy guarantees are empty claims. It's not 2012 anymore. Everyone knows better, as soon as they get access to that DB, they will start working on scraping all data from it.
There is 0 upsides to this.
It's probably an exception in EU.
At least this is what the law says, and how it is supposed to be. Reality on the ground, though? I am skeptical that the implementation is as perfect as the law requires it to be, especially judging by the quality of the average government IT system...
This data already leaks whenever you travel legally to the US, because they take it from you as a requirement of entry. All this does is let them check the data they take on entry against the provided data. Which seems fair. The fact this data is already in passports is a very different matter, but that is something the EU has done voluntarily.
I order to know who actually requested it, information needs to be shared that previously was not. (I can think of technical schemes to limit this to less scary recipients and data, but however you do it, some necessary side-effect remains: Citizens of the EU who do not make such request cannot remain entirely unaffected.)
I see comments like this all over hackernews but the truth is you actually don't care. You have a choice to not use HN/Reddit/YouTube/whatever but here you are.
Besides, I choose what information I link to this identity do I not? You're welcome to my views and their connection to each other. Doesn't mean I want you to know everything else.
It's not as personal as your diary, but it is the closest thing to it.
Don't get me wrong I would absolutely prefer a world where everyone is guaranteed privacy and governments would need a courts permission to even look up your phone number. It just will never exist and the only thing truly private is our thoughts.
There is no PII attached to my account. Even the email won't help.
Go on, find another account of mine anywhere.
You're anonymous to me. That doesn't mean you're anonymous to motivated government agencies.
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-mass-unmask-...
Sounds like they also don't believe in borders or immigration enforcement, etc
I can't take them seriously
And we're not talking about "border security" in its entirety, just the screening/identifying part.
It is not any kind of authority or even a reliable mechanism to do what it wants.
> In 2022, the US government announced that it would require access to biometric databases of countries if they wish to keep visa exemption for their citizens travelling to the US
Big bad eu !!11!?!
0 vision for the future
I could use much stronger words, but it's not worth it
How can you rally talents and visionaries when rulers are acting like that
Such a waste
Then again this is not uncommon either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...
At the least the orange king does not hide his attempt to pillage as much money as possible while refusing to explain who all visited the sexy Epstein islands. I have a ... slight suspicion some billionaires not known yet have also partied with underage girls there.
No, European countries suck completely on their own. There are people in jail without due process, we have histories full of systematic abuse of children/people with disabilities in care units, blatant disregard for constitutional rights by executive forces and you have these cases like this surfacing every other week.
You don't need the evil USA to reject biometric data gathering by government. You just need to get your largest boot and point it at the arse of the next public official that is responsible for YOU. Not some imaginary enemy behind a bit of water ffs... rant off
The mistake isn't some agreement with the USA, the problem is that this data might be available in the first place. And yes, this is a case where government/EU is NOT able to safeguard it.
Other than that the text is correct and then we should just need to deal with the realities of needing visas again.
> EDRi recommends the Commission and the Council to push back against the US government’s blackmail and refuse to sell people’s personal data
There is no leverage so I fail to see how this could succeed. Especially if said officials have zero problems with this kind of surveillance. They just have to pretend that they do.
Just because countries keep electing people with variations of the same policies doesn't make it unelected.
On the flip side foreign entities mostly won't ruin your life over petty deviance or find a way to predate upon you like local ones will because the foreign institution cannot project violence into your jurisdiction cheaply and without opposition the way the local one can. If I could choose who got access to the exclusion of the other it would be the foreign power every single time.
I know this wasn't what you were getting at but it's worth looking at the other side of the coin too seeing as voting barely grants us any power over how local entities use our data.
It seems like you already have no say over what they're doing with your data, and they're selling it to the US.
I might be misinformed, but I believe that American citizens have a way of forcing specific regulation instead of only forcing it to be considered. That would be something we don't have in the EU. So in the end it might just even out in that regard.
This is kind of besides the point though right. If you think EU nations already have serious issues why would you then also export personal data to another nation that has those same issues and worse?
Isn't there upside to the US too if more Europeans visit the US?
So nobody has sold anybody out yet. The solution is to never visit the USA.
For those who are neither US nor EU citizens, both immigration systems are a hassle, and in my experience the EU's is sadly a worse one.
The negotiation is only necessitated by the insistence on making travel not a prerequisite for potential harm. The US requests to query information beyond the validity of documents they can prove to have been physically presented to US officers.
Walls and steel doors are bad enough but it's a good thing we're not birds, or else the world would be covered with wire mesh.