Smile! Uncle Sam wants to scan your face on the way in – and out

Planning to visit the United States in the near future? If so, get ready to have your picture taken – and stored for decades – upon both entry and exit under a new Customs and Border Protection rule. The final rule was published on Monday, and expands the Department of Homeland Security's policy of collecting biometric data ( …

[msknight]

I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Given my personal circumstances, they'd just put me on a return flight anyway. Maybe after a spell punching number plates in a crocodile infested facility.

[vtcodger]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Indeed, as an American, I wonder why the hell anyone in their right mind would want to travel to the US as long as the current crop of xenophobic extremists is running things.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

A polite opinion: it's not just the extremists in charge, it's that so many people voted for and continue to support them. It does not reflect well on the USA as a whole.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

So next time perhaps they can be offered a credible alternative? Trump didn't win that election, the Democrats lost it.

[Adair]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Are you saying that what the Democrats offered was objectively worse than Trump and his cronies, or simply that the D's. didn't vomit out enough lies, misinformation, distortions, and utter bullshit—which was what 'the people' wanted to hear?

I guess they got what they wanted.

[DS999]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I honestly think the biggest problem is that the democrats ran a woman. Thanks to Biden waiting so long to drop out there was not really any other choice, but I honestly think that was a bigger problem than that she wasn't white.

The democrats ran against Trump three times. Two women lost, one man won. I don't personally subscribe to the view that a woman would make for a bad president, but I believe enough people in the "middle" (i.e. people who aren't going to vote for one side no matter who they put up) do that in the close elections we see running a woman for president is political suicide. For VP or congress sure, but too many people seem to draw the line at commander-in-chief.

[Adair]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

If that is true then 'the people' absolutely got what they wanted, and what they deserve: an utterly disreputable person in the high-chair on the strength of having XY chromosomes. It's just a shame that the tragedy outweighs the comedy.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

>biggest problem is that the democrats ran a woman.

But she was black and the Dems had their greatest success with a black man. They can't just keep running black men to appeal to some prejudiced voters

[Cheshire Cat]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

So the Americans are just even more sexist than they are racist? And - on average - they are *very* racist.

[DS999]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

So the Americans are just even more sexist than they are racist? And - on average - they are *very* racist

No you misunderstand. Yes Americans ARE more racist than sexist, but the racist vote is already decided by the 'R' next to a candidate's name before the primaries even take place.

Today the racists are overwhelmingly on board with republicans. They used to be mostly democrat but Nixon's "southern strategy" was to appeal to them, Reagan continued it with coded language about "welfare queens" and it reached its conclusion when the democrats nominated Obama. Democrats just ignore the racist vote now, because there is nothing they can do to win them over short of turning back the clock 60 years when the KKK was firmly behind all the southern democrats.

Sexists on the other hand are well represented across the spectrum including in the middle, and it is those middle of the road voters who aren't firmly in the camp of either party who will hurt you if you nominate a woman. If you figure roughly 40% of the voters are going to vote R no matter what, and 40% will vote D no matter what, there are only 20% of voters you can possibly hope to win (or lose) in an election. If even 10% of that 20% are sexist to the point of voting against a woman that's enough to swing an election in the critical states that will decide it.

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Not necessarily, you can be both racist and sexist or you can just be one or the other, but the combined number, yeah, probably enough to swing it for King Donald of Orange

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"But she was black and the Dems had their greatest success with a black man. "

Yes, but she had an (alleged (wink wink)) affair and wasn't/isn't attracted to other women (AFAWK). That left a box unticked for the Dems.

[veti]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I've said it before - the first female POTUS will be a Republican.

When the Dems nominate a woman, half the debate - not the public debate, but the arguments in families and forums and podcasts - becomes about her identity. It just sucks the oxygen away from every more substantive issue. It happened with Clinton, and we saw exactly the same thing happen with Harris.

The only way to draw that poison from the debate is for the GOP to nominate a woman. That would be quite a different dynamic. It'll happen eventually - they won't be able to resist that particular way of owning the libs - and when it does, it will finally break the glass ceiling. I doubt any Dem can do it before then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I think you're forgetting all the misogynistic attacks Sarah Palin had to endure.

[ICL1900-G3]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I rather think she brought most of them on herself by talking such complete bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

There were clearly attacks on her simply for being a woman and a mother that had little to do with her political stances. Just as there were legitimate criticisms of Harris as well as misogynistic and racist ones. You can't deny one without denying the other.

Regardless of your political stance, we won't get anywhere as a species if we permit attacks on people's protected characteristics simply because they also have the 'wrong' political alignment.

[Helcat]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I think the problem is more one of perception: Which women stood rather than it being a woman. Please note I'm in the UK, so this is an outsiders take on what was happening:

Hilary had a tainted image after the Monica affair, and a rather poor performance against Trump on national TV. People seemed to be fatigued by the Clintons and hence, even though she got the popular vote, she didn't win the swing states and so Trump won. Had any other Democrat stood in her place, they'd have likely beaten Trump. In some respects, it seems that hubris was the downfall of Hilary's campaign.

Harris was a disaster from the start: She seemed to be shoehorned in at the last moment, struggled to get momentum going on her campaign, and kept repeating the nonsense of being 'unburdened by what has been': She was an easy target for mockery and honestly, she came over as weak and ineffectual.

So the argument of sexism isn't really compelling: Biden came across as confident, Hilary as untrustworthy, and Harris as weak. Trump presented a confident image. Hence Biden had a chance and won: Hilary and Harris did not.

What I believe the US needed was a better candidate, and I honestly think the US as a majority would be very happy with having a female President, the same way they welcomed Obama. Hell, if Michelle had stood... I think she'd have won by an absolute landslide! People liked her! And yes, she was who I was hoping would stand rather than either of Hilary or Harris. Shame she didn't.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Hell, if Michelle had stood... I think she'd have won by an absolute landslide! People liked her! And yes, she was who I was hoping would stand rather than either of Hilary or Harris. Shame she didn't.

Kinda what I mean by the DNC needing fresh blood and a new start. So they spent millions astroturfing the 'No Kings' meme, which didn't get much traction. Then running an Obama? Republicans would have a field day. If Biden wasn't running the White House, who was? If that was Obama pulling strings, then that brand is pretty tainted.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"Hilary had a tainted image after the Monica affair,"

A big part of that was a confirmation that Mr Bill chased and often caught all sorts of women. Monica was laser focused on receiving Presidential favors to the consternation of the Secret Service and the political handlers. Paula Jones' allegations of a handsy Mr Bill also tugged the veil back a bit on his hunting activities. The question then becomes how good of a wife is Hillary. Why did she go to lengths to shield an assistant, Huma, who's husband was arrested for sex crimes? A change in the company she prefers to keep?

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"Hell, if Michelle had stood... I think she'd have won by an absolute landslide!"

Maybe, but would she have been a good President? If she was competent to do the job, would she get any credit/respect or just be labeled as "Barry 2.0"

I didn't care for her and she had never put herself forward in any political context while she was First Lady. While some might say that the best person for the role is somebody that doesn't want it, I have to disagree in this case. Being lumbered with some task where you work that you don't like might mean you find a way to get it done quickly so you can get on with the things you were hired to do and might like doing. That's doesn't work for a national leadership role.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"I honestly think the biggest problem is that the democrats ran a woman. Thanks to Biden waiting so long to drop out there was not really any other choice, but I honestly think that was a bigger problem than that she wasn't white."

One could also say that race wouldn't have mattered as much if she had any "Presidential" presence. Ms. Harris was one for cackling speeches that made little sense where she would make "jokes" that nobody else got. Her background of being mentored by a a prominent and married California politician where there was strong indications that the relationship was far more than professional didn't help. Women being more persecuted for extra-martial affairs than men.

Hillary is a vindictive and miserable old bat. A former Secret Service officer that worked in the White House while Mr Bill was President wrote a book exposing the sorted lives they led. She was known to tell agents that wished her a good morning/day/evening to FO. She didn't have to be their buddy, but their job was to place their lives on the line to protect her so, at least, some respect was due.

Brandon dropping out at the last minute didn't leave any time for a proper campaign, but the custom has been that the VP will get the nomination for their party when the President has timed out or won't be running. It wouldn't be impossible for the Democratic party to put forward somebody else, but it wouldn't have been easy. They will also have needed somebody they were confident would be able to beat Mr Trump. Wasting a good candidate rather than letting them run a shadow campaign for the next election can be the better tactic. Once somebody has lost a Presidential Election, it's difficult for them to run a second time. That can be due to some defect in their history or the party would rather back a new horse the next time around.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I'm saying that the Democrats' alternative had so little credibility that people opted for a confident, arrogant demagogue because it was that or an unimpressive, almost invisible, lightweight. Trump would have stood little chance against (Bill) Clinton or Obama ar their peak.

Sadly, as others have noted, a lot of Americans, and seemingly a lot of American women, won't vote for a woman. That's a different problem, but until it can be solved the workaround is to offer a male candidate. It shouldn't be that way, but you have to play the hand you're dealt. The Democrats shot themselves in both feet by maintaining Biden as candidate for so long, and then dumping him when they had no obvious, competent, successor.

[DS999]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

no obvious, competent, successor

There was nothing not "competent" about Harris. The reason she lost was 1) she was female 2) the way the voters felt she was pushed on them by the "machine" without a proper primary and 3) she was not white, in that order IMHO.

There were polls after the election and a few percent of voters (across both parties) when asked if they noticed Biden was not on the ballot reported being surprised by that. Never underestimate how disengaged some people are from the news, especially in the age of streaming where it is quite possible to avoid seeing ALL political content (at least if you're consuming ad free content I suppose) and apparently miss the whole "Biden dropped out" news. And that was of people who VOTED, so you can imagine how uninformed the 1/3 of eligible voters who did not vote likely are.

[MrBanana]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Also, Harris stated that she would go with the same policies that Biden was running on. The Democrats bet the farm on being the incumbent. Not once, by continuing to endorse a very clearly (f)ailing president, but the doubling down on a hastily prepared candidate seeking the same, flawed mandate. 100 days is nowhere near long enough to mount a presidential campaign if your vice presidency was (at best) undistinguished, and following a "nothing changes" mantra only makes it worse. The democrats should have sidelined Biden after the mid terms and found a candidate that could be different, and better prepared to face Trump. Harris was unlikely to be that person, but at least she was able to walk and talk in a straight line without farting.

[DS999]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I think Harris had no choice but to basically mirror Biden's positions, given the short timeline. If she'd taken different positions then the criticism would have been on her not speaking up as VP or being disingenuous now. Kind of a no-win position. It was all because Biden didn't want to admit to himself that he was slipping mentally, and the people around him didn't want to be the one to tell him. Even when it was obvious after the debate it took him like a month to finally agree to drop out, leaving no path for anything other than elevating Harris as the nominee.

I really think we need a Constitutional amendment that bars a president, VP, senator or congressman from being sworn in over the age of 70 (maybe with an exception if someone is taking a NEW oath to replace a president after they were elected as VP) The problem is far worse in congress, but it is a real issue for the presidency as well.

We had Reagan exhibiting clear signs of Alzheimer's in his second term, then Biden, and now Trump all clearly too old to serve. There are mandatory retirement ages that are lower in critical fields like air traffic control. How in the world can people stand behind an age limit for a commercial pilot or air traffic controller and not for the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military? You can't.

Now sure maybe you can point to your great grandma who was sharp as a tack until she died at 102, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

We have drug testing for mail carriers but not for the defense war secretary

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

>great grandma who was sharp as a tack until she died at 102

Is the US ready for its first posthumous President ?

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"I really think we need a Constitutional amendment that bars a president, VP, senator or congressman from being sworn in over the age of 70 (maybe with an exception if someone is taking a NEW oath to replace a president after they were elected as VP) The problem is far worse in congress, but it is a real issue for the presidency as well."

That's a very good idea. Somebody over that age could still serve on staff in advisory role, but not in the seat. There's room and roles for that sort of thing. A commercial pilot could step back from flying and take a position in the pilot's union or within the company managing pilots where if there's any issues, it won't mean putting a metal tube full of lemmings on the edge of a precipice.

My maternal gran was batty the whole time I knew her and my mother says it went all the way back to her childhood as well. Besides mental acuity, physical failings are an issue too. A senior politician in hospital isn't in a position to carry out the bulk of their duties and the chances of stroke or other debilitating afflictions that can come suddenly goes up the older we get.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"but at least she was able to walk and talk in a straight line without farting."

We all fart, but most would do their best to not break wind in front of her Majesty. Especially the case when you know that your emanations are exceptionally noxious.

Not being able to walk in a straight line or mount stairs should have told the puppet masters that there should have been many fewer public appearances where Brandon wasn't seated the whole time or only needed to enter and exit through the office side door a few steps away.

[frankvw]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"Are you saying that what the Democrats offered was objectively worse than Trump and his cronies..."

The operative word here is "objective". Because that is exactly the problem. People don't vote objectively. They vote emotionally. They never look at the facts, at a candidate's qualifications for the job, or the realistic possibilities that said candidate will steer the country the right way in a responsible manner. Instead they listen to what a candidate says, how they say it, and how that makes them feel.

A lot of people are not as happy with their lives as they would like to be. They work their backsides off, struggle to make ends meet, can't see any improvement on the horizon, and feel (often correctly) that nobody gives a flying United about their problems. A lot of people are angry about that.

Successful political candidates know this. Look at history. Those who can successfully appeal to voters' emotions get elected. The ones who point at the facts and try to suggest realistic solutions in a calm and objective manner tend to sink without a trace. Angry voters make this easier, since all a politician has to do is to point out a common enemy and everyone will blissfully stampede to trample the scapegoat. In 1930's Europe it was the Jews; in 2025's America it's everyone who isn't perceived to be a red-blooded American with (as one poster here called it so aptly) a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

Elections are emotional, not rational. Which means that Douglas Adams was entirely correct in his summary: people are a problem.

[codejunky]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

@frankvw

"The operative word here is "objective". Because that is exactly the problem. People don't vote objectively. They vote emotionally. They never look at the facts, at a candidate's qualifications for the job, or the realistic possibilities that said candidate will steer the country the right way in a responsible manner. Instead they listen to what a candidate says, how they say it, and how that makes them feel."

Without making any defence of Trump to say this, looking objectively what kind of brain dead corpse would think Harris was viable? Interviews with her had to be selective or even that huge chop and change job just to make her seem coherent. People struggled to find any achievement she had made as VP but could see failures. I think the nail in the coffin was hammered in at the beginning when Biden made the point that she was chosen as VP for her gender and skin colour. It didnt help she covered for Bidens mental incapability nor that she continued when it was suddenly ok to notice it.

Harris wasnt a candidate, she was the result of being cornered by bad decisions. There is still time for Vance to lose the next election but not a lot of time for the Dems to promote someone worth voting for. At the moment it looks like AOC and Newsom are trying to position themselves to run but they would be hard pressed to be competition.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Harris wasnt a candidate, she was the result of being cornered by bad decisions. There is still time for Vance to lose the next election but not a lot of time for the Dems to promote someone worth voting for. At the moment it looks like AOC and Newsom are trying to position themselves to run but they would be hard pressed to be competition.

I think the Dems problem is they just don't seem to understand why they lost. Until they do that, and can come up with some coherent policies and a plausible candidate, they're destined to lose again. Newsom would just be more of the same, and the Republicans can just point at his 'achievements' governning California. It's also been interesting looking at the Netherlands election results. That seems to have been a vote for change, and they've elected a young liberal with some interesting ideas. Like build 10 new cities. Nice idea, but paying for it is the problem.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I can't say I agree with Mr Eel very often but I suspect he is correct this time. I actually think they should run AOC - force people to make a real choice: Trump-lite or a european-style liberal who might actually improve things.

[codejunky]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

@Graham Cobb

"I can't say I agree with Mr Eel very often but I suspect he is correct this time. I actually think they should run AOC - force people to make a real choice: Trump-lite or a european-style liberal who might actually improve things."

Could they not find someone smarter than AOC? Last I checked she is pretty much a meme for stupidity.

[Casca]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

Maybe you shouldnt just look at memes. Altough that would explain a lot of your posts...

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"Could they not find someone smarter than AOC? "

I haven't been paying her any attention, but early on when the newsies were all over her, it was obvious that she didn't even understand the structure of the US government. Anybody in a senior political office should have passed a high school Civics class with a grade in the 90th percentile.

I see her as more of a "vote for me and get free stuff" style of candidate. The money will come from "taxing the rich" nonsense.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I actually think they should run AOC - force people to make a real choice: Trump-lite or a european-style liberal who might actually improve things.

I think Ms Occasional-Cortex would be a liability, and what's needed is that euro-ish liberal that doesn't have AOC's baggage. They'll probably be going up against Vance or Rubio, or someone like them. So a candidate that can hold their own in a debate.. Which neither Biden nor Harris could do. Then the DNC needs some credible policies to pitch, and basically ignore Trump entirely. The negative campaigning over the last couple of decades I think has turned off many voters, and it's time for a bit of positivity. Which probably also means putting the DNC's Old Guard out to pasture because the Obama/Clinton/Pelosi cabal failed badly. But it needs to be doing this now and picking a 40-something male & female candidate to start their run.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

>what's needed is that euro-ish liberal that doesn't have AOC's baggage

Or they could follow the UK's lead

If the want to beat a right wing candidate the left wing party just has to select a more right wing candidate than the right wing party

I applaud President Trumps decision to Nuke Washington and call on his administration to go further.....

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"That seems to have been a vote for change, and they've elected a young liberal with some interesting ideas. Like build 10 new cities. "

There has to be a reason to build a city rather than just "building 10 new cities". A company looking to add premises somewhere wants a good population to draw employees from. A city with no history would be a giant gamble. There's heaps of new infrastructure that has to go in to support a city that may not exist and take years to plan, budget and build. It's another one of those political memes that means nothing and has little hope of going anywhere.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"Interviews with her had to be selective or even that huge chop and change job just to make her seem coherent. People struggled to find any achievement she had made as VP but could see failures. I think the nail in the coffin was hammered in at the beginning when Biden made the point that she was chosen as VP for her gender and skin colour. It didnt help she covered for Bidens mental incapability nor that she continued when it was suddenly ok to notice it."

Much like de-mumbled edits of Elon Musk on Tesla earnings call. The unedited versions are really difficult to parse and the edited versions convince me to keep my money in other investments.

I'm not a great off the cuff public speaker and I know it. When I do talks, I build an outline and make notes while also practicing out loud until I think my delivery will be good enough. It also lets me anticipate questions I might get and good responses to them. I'd never comment that "these questions are so dry" to an audience. If I made that sort of dismissal, everything I'd said to that point would be dismissed as well.

My local Representative is careful when doing talks to not fall into "the Dems this, the Dems that" when he holds talks. He's also extremely gracious with all of the stupid questions he gets about things that aren't relevant to his office (local and state specific issues since he holds a Federal Office). I'm most impressed with him for that and the lack of "blame game" politics is also refreshing. The Senators for my state really need to be recycled before they compost on the hoof.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"People don't vote objectively. They vote emotionally. They never look at the facts, "

I'd use "many" or "most" in such a statement.

I spend the time to look into each candidate and issue before I go to vote (in person). It's not that hard as the issues are often just a "no" and there aren't that many candidates I see with the sort of qualifications I think are important. I do wish that more would do the same rather than voting for an agenda/cause.

[Grunchy]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

“So next time perhaps they can be offered a credible alternative? Trump didn't win that election, the Democrats lost it.”

The Democrats lost because Joe Biden was the nominee, and when it was clear that Joe Biden looked like he was suffering dementia and was destined to lose, Joe Biden unilaterally chose Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee.

You guys keep saying, “this is the fault of American voters.” American voters never had any say. The contest was between the Republican Party nominee (Trump) vs Joe Biden’s nominee (Kamala), and it was a slam-dunk fact one or the other was becoming the next president.

(My personal opinion is to make politics like the free market by providing voters the power to vote “no,” I think people are skeptical of the scheme because they maybe don’t understand it yet. It’s the r/PlebisciteBallot scheme, on Reddit, it’s not all that difficult to grasp!)

[Jellied Eel]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

You guys keep saying, “this is the fault of American voters.” American voters never had any say. The contest was between the Republican Party nominee (Trump) vs Joe Biden’s nominee (Kamala), and it was a slam-dunk fact one or the other was becoming the next president.

I think that was another DNC mistake, especially after the way Clinton nobbled Saunders nomination. The DNC assumed party members would be happy with Biden running again, never gave party members the option to vote for an alternate candidate, then left it too late to nominate anyone other than Harris. The nominations process for Trump might not have been fair either, but at least it had the appearence of democracy.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"The nominations process for Trump might not have been fair either, but at least it had the appearence of democracy."

I get the impression that Mr Trump bullied his way in. I don't think that the Republican party was that keen on nominating somebody they knew they couldn't put on a leash. Being uncontrolled by the political machine could have been a positive, but we can see that isn't the case here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

"credible alternative"?

The same millionaires/billionaires and businesses own both red and blue in the US, same as the UK. Both countries are geared for only having a 2 party "option" and those who are really in power are aware of that.

It's just an illusion that you have a choice as to whomever is the figurehead in the White House.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

As an American said to me when I spoke about embarrassing German things (years ago, before Trump first term): "I'm American. When it comes to embarrassment, you are amateurs."

[tiggity]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

I visited as holiday was long booked in advance & costly to back out of.

It also happened to be a holiday for wildlife watching that didn't really have a non US alternative (e.g. not going to see California quail outside of US (though can see it outside California) - I suppose I could have seen a Cali Condor in N. Mexico, but Mexico has its' own issues that are tourist unfriendly)

The people I met in California were very happy to see tourists from outside the US - got a lot of people thanking us for visiting (so assume Trump was having some effect on putting off international tourists) & obviously the majority politics of Cali is quite different to Trumpism - I think decisions on the state(s) you are visiting should be taken into account when doing a US visit*.

* Though US immigration has (in my experience) always been aggressive / unpleasant / hostile when entering the US (it was the same years ago, long before Trump when I occasionally visited US for work reasons)

[DS999]

Unfortunately

Other governments will imitate this so pretty soon you won't be able to avoid biometric scans unless you never leave your borders.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Unfortunately

In the UK you won't be able to avoid it at all....

[GNU Enjoyer]

Re: Unfortunately

In almost all countries, you will soon not be able to avoid biometric scans unless you never go outside and never allow spying devices inside.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Unfortunately

"Other governments will imitate this so pretty soon you won't be able to avoid biometric scans unless you never leave your borders."

There will be loopholes for those that can afford them.

[Christoph]

Re: I'm not planning to visit the United Hell Holes any time soon

You are perfectly safe, they would never put you in a crocodile infested facility.

Alligators however . . .

[b0llchit]

Avoid - at all costs

Planning to visit the United States in the near future?

It is clear that nobody is welcome in the country any more. So, simply do not travel to that country.

[simonlb]

Re: Avoid - at all costs

Much as I'd like to visit Trumpton, there are a good 200 other countries I'd consider visiting first.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Avoid - at all costs

It is possible that the news coming out of the USA is just a viral marketing campaign for the Somali tourist office

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Avoid - at all costs

North Korea, Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan all seem preferable to the USA right now.....

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Avoid - at all costs

The sad part is that half of the US population are sane. Used to be more, but recently they started to run. And those who run are a, sort of, better quality pre-selection, automatically, and are usually the most adaptable and able to learn. For example how loud the average American is compared to most of the other world, especially in groups - at least at the beginning. And a bit later they ALL enjoy actual freedom of speech in Germany, since German Directness goes both ways: You can say what you think as long as you don't go ad hominem. Example: I like a movie, you find it horrible. You can say STRAIGHT "Oh that movie was horrible" - can't do that in USA without offending someone, whereas Germans know "it is about the movie, not the person".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Avoid - at all costs

That’s not true! White South Africans are welcome in Trumpistan.

[Covid-20/21]

Face for Radio

I fly in and out of the US a lot and have my photo taken by the TSA each time, which considering that I'm getting on a plane, I'm actually quite pleased about them ID'ing the bad people.

When I fly in and out of Dublin, they photograph me with the new biometric passport scanners.

I fail to see what the issue is here.

[Fonant]

Re: Face for Radio

The issue is the false positives (and false negatives).

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Face for Radio

Imagine your face gets recognized as empty doritos bag, or even worse: A bag of skittles!

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Face for Radio

The difference is between taking a picture, checking it matches the picture biometric on your passport and then deleting it, and taking a picture storing it alongside 350 million other pictures and then mining that for marches with bad guys.

If you have a 1M photos of bad guys, 350M photos of citizens and a 99.9% accuracy rate, how many innocent people do you shoot?

[MiguelC]

Re: Face for Radio

Oh! Oh! I know that one.

You shoot everyone!! Yay! Where's my prize?

[MachDiamond]

Re: Face for Radio

"Yay! Where's my prize?"

You should go over and stand in the line with the other winners next to that wall. Would you like a cigarette?

[vtcodger]

Re: Face for Radio

Exactly. And it's extremely doubtful that, marketing claims notwithstanding, that facial recognition software is anywhere near 99.9% accurate. See https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/when-it-comes-to-facial-recognition-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-magic-number.

As a quick non-intrusive initial screen to raise questions about whether someone is flying on someone else's passport facial recognition might be acceptable. But comparing the scan to scans from large numbers of miscreants seems a really, really silly idea.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Face for Radio

The Met Police trials of facial recognition at the Notting Hill carnival managed 100% success rate

Well they identified 100% of black men, and the police had to decide what they were guilty of later after they had been arrested, but it's a start

[simonlb]

Re: Face for Radio

Ah, the Metropolitan Police, a paragon of professionalism, honesty and superlative high standards. Allegedly.

[GNU Enjoyer]

Re: Face for Radio

Why is the picture matched inaccurately with a computer? Why isn't it matched accurately by a human?

If that takes too long, maybe it should be considered that handling passports appears to have resulted in far more costs and harm and time wasted than any harm ever prevented by such.

Remember that before the 1990s, passports were generally optional even for international travel and seemingly less bad things happened?

To ride any vehicle, even a plane to anywhere, especially to within the same country, there is no legitimate reason why the 99.999% of innocent people should be abused and have to show ID just because there is a minuscule chance of catching the 0.001% guilty - showing ID should be entirely optional, with the only consequence of choosing not to show ID that makes any sense, would be a more careful search of that individuals bag for bombs (if any), if the baggage handlers are feeling extra paranoid as a result.

[FuzzyTheBear]

Re: Face for Radio

" I'm actually quite pleased about them ID'ing the bad people. "

So you consider ( and identify ) yourself as bad people ? Got it.

[GNU Enjoyer]

Re: Face for Radio

It's not about ID'ing "bad people" - that's the excuse - they really don't care about criminals.

What's so special about a plane? It's not that different to other vehicles.

Attackers that have any chance of "success" aren't completely incompetent and aren't going to be stopped completely inaccurate scanners - as obviously the first thing such mythical attackers are going to do is a dry run to test who attracts attention and who doesn't.

Wait, if I remember correctly, no attacker has *ever* been stopped by ID'ing, even if they didn't even bother to do a dry run (although most attackers have been so hopeless that their attack had no chance of succeeding regardless).

It's solely about being able to arrest and punish innocent people at random to make the quota of arrests, because "scanner says evil" happens extremely regularly at random.

[MrBanana]

Re: Face for Radio

"What's so special about a plane? It's not that different to other vehicles."

A car, or a bus, could be a mobile bomb, more so than the threat of an abandoned bag, or a waste bin full of Semtex. But I don't think it has happened yet. Planes being used as missiles, definitely been done before.

[GNU Enjoyer]

Re: Face for Radio

Cars, trucks and sometimes buses have been used many times as ground "missiles" to inflict more deaths in total than the 3-4 times a plane has been used as a missile - although such a common occurrence is mostly ignored.

The twin towers years prior to 2001 came close to being collapsed by a truck bomb, but the attacker didn't park the truck close enough to the foundations; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing?useskin=monobook

With a plane, preventing hijacking is a simple matter of putting a lock and hardening the cockpit door (too bad that same door can be used by a first officer that wants to commit suicide (via flying the plane into a mountain), to deny the captain access to the cockpit).

>waste bin full of Semtex

I don't believe that has ever happened (although that is simply to do with the cost of the explosive - cheaper explosives are preferred even for the extremely rare occasion of a waste bin bomb).

>A car, or a bus, could be a mobile bomb >But I don't think it has happened yet.

Cars, buses and trucks have been used as a mobile bomb many times; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_bomb?useskin=monobook

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Face for Radio

> What's so special about a plane? It's not that different to other vehicles.

I smell an education gap...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust#Moscow_flight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

etc. No, you don't deserve clickable links.

[GNU Enjoyer]

Re: Face for Radio

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

Those were of terrible effectiveness and cost thousands of lives and planes for a limited amount of damage (armored British carriers usually just needed to sweep the deck and concrete+metal plate up the hole the single shell+plane had made - although poorly armored US boats could be put out of action for 6 months).

There were also suicide boats used less often, which also has terrible effectiveness, but did achieve similar amount of damage; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo_(suicide_motorboat)?useskin=monobook

Therefore, planes are not that different to boats when it comes to attacks on ships.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust#Moscow_flight

I don't see the relevance of that occurrence - someone merely decided to fly a light plane to Moscow without any planned attack and managed to fly past missile battalions as those weren't given permission to fire missiles (as a slow-moving light plane wasn't regarded as enough of a threat to risk downing a "friend" aircraft).

You could also drive a car or motorbike to Moscow in an unauthorized manner if you managed to get past, or drive around the border crossing.

A relevant article would be; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack?useskin=monobook which demonstrates how ineffective a light plane is compared to a truck; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing?useskin=monobook

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

If the previous truck attack didn't fail to bring the towers down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing?useskin=monobook), due to the attacker not parking the truck close enough to the foundations, a similar amount of deaths and destruction could have been caused.

Which is another example as to how planes are not that different to other vehicles.

Yes, like any vehicle, in the wrong hands, a plane can cause death and destruction - but a mostly actually effective solution to that problem is locking and hardening the cockpit door - not attacking the passengers (i.e. submit to this facial scan and you have the option of being groped or having naked pictures taken and stored forever, as we feel that will stop attackers somehow).

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Face for Radio

I deliberately did choose the non-violent Mathias Rust example for showing how easy it would have been. As for the rest of your examples: The post I was responding to explicitly talked about planes, I did not see the need to add other examples.

[NapTime ForTruth]

Re: Face for Radio

It's also a way to keep the population afraid. Frightened people make poor and self-serving (or advantageous, depending on your authority, position, and access) decisions, mostly focusing on appearing docile and cooperative. That becomes a habit. Docile, cooperative people are easily controlled and manipulated by authority.

They vote for strongmen. They serve the state. They vote away their own power. They turn in their neighbors. They turn in their spouses. They turn in their children.

"...then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me..."

[frankvw]

Re: Face for Radio

"I fail to see what the issue is here."

The issue is not that biometric data is obtained. The issue is how it will be used.

As we all know, governments (not just in the US!) have an absolutely stellar record of handling such data responsibly, properly and ethically, only using it for The Good Of All, and making sure it never falls into the wrong hands or ends up being used in ways that will only benefit certain select politicians or politically connected businesses, all at the expense of the likes of you and me.

Because that would never happen, right?

[MachDiamond]

Re: Face for Radio

"I fail to see what the issue is here."

Of course. The Soma dispenser is on right as you leave the building.

[FuzzyTheBear]

For Canadians

Just one more reason not to go to that fascist country. It's got nothing to offer that we can't get elsewhere but misery. As a Canadian i don't buy anything made in the USA nor will ever visit a fascist backwards country . They sealed their fate .. now they dug their grave and the coffin sits at the bottom .. allow me the first shovel of earth ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For Canadians

Maybe Canada should build their own wall to keep the USA out?

(Ala south park "you ain't my buddy guy", "you ain't my guy friend " "you ain't my friend buddy" and so on in cyclical rotation)

[KittenHuffer]

Aliens!

--------> Most photographed!

[MyffyW]

Re: Aliens!

"no comprehensive system in place to collect biometrics from aliens departing the country"

Well, duh! Of course not, they scarper off in their flying saucer right after putting probes up your various orifices. In my experience. Probably.

[IGotOut]

Why not simply.

...close all the routes in and be done with it.

It's not like you can't go to Canada if you want to visit North America. Better country and better people.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Why not simply.

>...close all the routes in and be done with it.

Build TWO walls

[headrush]

Re: Why not simply.

The only place they aren't building walls is where the sea level is rising to flood the nuclear waste dumps and cities.

[ajadedcynicaloldfart]

Re: Why not simply.

@headrush

Am assuming you are refering to this...

https://www.nicholson1968.com/the-cli-nic/the-dome-of-the-enewetak-atoll-in-the-marshall-islands

Probably the only thing that the U.Sians have not stuck umpteen U.S. flags on it

Ishy

[GNU Enjoyer]

Re: Why not simply.

Nuclear waste dumps?

The last time I checked, the place the USA dumps slightly used fuel, is in decent packaging that will handle occasional flooding, that is in a desert that is at no risk of flooding from sea level rise.

If flooding is a concern - just grind everything up until a fine powder and spread it it into the sea - unlike a river, the sea is so big that it'll dilute whatever radioactive materials that ends up in it so much to be harmless.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: Why not simply.

No, one. You remember Snake Plissken? Now, apply that to the whole USA, not just New York.

[CountCadaver]

Re: Why not simply.

And starlink makes me think of the emp firing satellites from escape from LA (Spoiler Snake does a switcheroo with the actual controller and then punches in the world code without any further narrowing - destroying everything electronic on the planet)

[MachDiamond]

Re: Why not simply.

"Build TWO walls"

Lots more jobs for the politicians to take credit for creating.

[Toastan Buttar]

Re: Why not simply.

"It's not like you can't go to Canada if you want to visit North America.

Better country and better people."

As that Canadian rock band Rush once said:

Better people, better food, and better beer

Why move around the world, Eden was so near?

- "Territories" from the album Power Windows

[Anonymous Custard]

Double-take?

a cloud-based facial biometric comparison product that compares live photographs of travelers with images from their travel documents.

Hang on, so does this mean you're actually supposed to look like your passport photo...?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Double-take?

No it only measures simple biometric parameters

Skin/fake-tan colour eye colour, squareness of little mustache

[martinusher]

Re: Double-take?

When I entered the US early this year the agent remarked that I looked exactly the same as my passport photo, even to wearing the same clothing. It happens.

When I entered the US last month nobody said anything because nobody looked at my passport. The machine scanned my face, gave me a green check mark and I was on my way. Both entries were at the Bradley (International) terminal at LAX (Los Angeles).

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Double-take?

The machine scanned my face, gave me a green check mark

Yep. And now you can be arrested if you don't still have that green check mark on your forehead when you try to leave the country. But they're just being thorough-

If so, get ready to have your picture taken – and stored for decades – upon both entry and exit under a new Customs and Border Protection rule.

Face scanned on entry, back of your head on exit.

[Winkypop]

Re: Double-take?

Old saying:

“If you look like your passport photo, then you’re too ill to travel.”

[harrys]

Atleast its democratic now

Before if you didnt have citizenship u had no rights and were treated like cattle

If you had, u were arrogantly striding away telling the assoles who were curtailing your rights to fuck off

Now equality prevails .... hail america .... the land of the free :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Atleast its democratic now

Not just the US though.

[codejunky]

In other news

Absolutely fantastic trolling Trump has been gifted a crown! Maybe Trump will need to relax border restrictions with the aneurysms about to happen.

[simonlb]

Re: In other news

If it were a halo it might slip down and choke him...

We can only hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In other news

Maybe he can put it on display in his presidential library. Next to the Epstein files.

[MC]

The US have been storing your photo and fingerprint for 75 years, for the last 20 years now!!!!!!!! Not getting why this is a story here and elsewhere.

I was hoping they would stop fingerprinting, I haven't visited since 2003 because of that.

Given up hope on that changing anyway, I'll never go there again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Why is it news? Because it gets more and more and we don't trust them. These "elites" want to map and catalogue everything so they can control everything including you and I. And ... over reliance on technology will lead to errors that wont be corrected. There are other people out there who may look like you and when they transgress no one will care if the wrong person is arrested because AI got a match. The police will still arrive (or robot dog) in the early hours and drag you off infront of the wife and kids because the AI said it was you. The AI that is rewarded based on a thoughtless KPI an idiot created so he could meet his KPI and bonus.

[An_Old_Dog]

Do It For ${IMPORTANT_CAUSE}

Under the prior rule, people under 14 and over 79 were exempted from having their data collected at entry and exit points. The rule removes those restrictions, "as the use of biometrics has expanded beyond criminal history background checks and now plays a vital role in identity verification and management, and combating the trafficking of children."

Yup, the government biometrics recordkeeping system is going to save those over-79-years-old-"children" from being trafficked.

[Sub 20 Pilot]

Can't think of a single reason to go to the US any more than I can for North Korea. They have shown that they fucking hate everyone who is not an USian and even then only if not black or a woman.

I will spend my money in other countries that welcome foreigners not treat them worse than criminals.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

"Noncitizens"

Yeah right! The news is that NOW Noncitizens are included too! Citizens were in there for decades already, so now finally equality!

[graemep]

Biometrics for visas and entry is becoming the global norm.

The EU is doing exactly the same thing (but fingerprints too). The UK already has biometric face + fingerprint visas.

The problem is that non-citizens cannot push back, so governments can do whatever they like and your only recourse is not go there. Of course they can then exchange the data with each other for some-good-reason-think-of-the-children.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want you to travel. Uses carbon allowances they want for themselves; their travel, their digital control grid. They will need to also remove all disposable income that can be used to oppose them, hence the increasing financial & pschological attacks on the middleclasses. Take their money, indoctrinate in education and have them ponce around virtue signalling that they're saving the planet. The working class don't give a toss because they didn't listen in school, didn't go to college and know a con when they see one. Unfortunately, they never had much disposable income to organise and the Unions have been captured as just another block seeking elite status and control.

[Anonymous Coward]

"would help prevent terrorism"

If I were up to no good in that line at the very least would enter the US bypassing border checks altogether.

But honestly what could a host of suicidal terrorists do today in the US that Americans aren't already doing to themselves ?

[Ken Hagan]

Re: "would help prevent terrorism"

They could be a useful diversion from what those Americans are doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

“Planning to visit the United States in the near future?”

LOL

Oh come on now. Those days are over.

I’m just glad I visited numerous times back when sanity was encouraged.

[wolfetone]

Re: “Planning to visit the United States in the near future?”

Same here.

My wife said she'd like to take our child to Disneyland and I said "Yeah Paris would be nice". She didn't mean that, she meant Florida. Which resulted in a good debate about how I'm not letting my child enter that shit hole the way it's going. My wife said that was fairly sad as I'm depriving him of visiting the country, but I pointed out that the generation(s) after ours don't see America like we did growing up. They have no affection for it. They see it for what it is. A cess pit. Absolutely no value in the country, where it's people pretend to be Christian by blocking a woman's right to make choices concerning her own body, while shrug their shoulders at children being murdered in schools.

I don't want my child exposed to that.

[MachDiamond]

Re: “Planning to visit the United States in the near future?”

"I don't want my child exposed to that."

I don't think you'll find reproductive health indoctrination propaganda at Disney World.

You will find a £10,000 hole in your bank account from the trip. Trips to a local fun fair or play park will get you just as many parenting points. Standing in queues all day and being fed horrible bits of cardboard and non-fizzy fizzy drinks doesn't lead to wonderful memories and the $100 hoodie with Mickey on will be outgrown in a year.

Some friends of mine and I found all sorts of interesting places to go and see within a couple of hours drive on the weekends and that's in a freakin' desert when we worked at an aerospace company. I'm not going to run down international travel, but it is expensive and time consuming. I work for myself so I can take as much time as I like and I have been all over the world a bunch of times, mostly with work. There's so many things to see and do much closer to home that I can tick more of them off of a bucket list than splurging on big trips where I see one or two things along with a gazzillion other tourists that are more annoying than I am. As I have property in Wales and Scotland while living in the US, I do make that trip every so often. When I'm there, there's so much to explore that there's no need to go anywhere else even if I had the time. The ever increasing border nonsense is getting to the point where I might just sell my share of the UK properties and never travel internationally again. If the Swedish Bikini Team was doing the security checks at the airports, I might not notice the indignities, but alas, not even runner's up hold those jobs.

[T. F. M. Reader]

"cloud-based facial biometric comparison product"

So what happens when the cloud is down? On the way in - long lines, missed connections? On the way out - long lines, miss return flights, overstay your visa?

[Graham Cobb]

Re: "cloud-based facial biometric comparison product"

That's par for the course now. I've been to a couple of major EU capitals in the last few weeks. Both times the queue for non-citizen arrival border processing was an hour. Basically a whole plane load of people from the UK, with 2 people handling non-Schengen processing, and having been given instructions to do the full questioning thing. [Actually, in both cases, after queuing for an hour a more senior border control person came and gave the 2 officers an instruction which resulted in each entry going back to taking less than 30 seconds, presumably to clear the queue]

What I don't have visibility of is whether the same long waits are happening for EU visitors entering the UK.

[Potemkine!]

I don't intend to travel to the US. I don't travel in countries run by dictators.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you do (or you never travel), you just haven't been told by the TV who they are.

[Tubz]

as if you would trust HLS to delete photo after 12 hours, it will be nicely secured in a black site system outside of oversight and accessed via shadow links from legitimate agencies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate this

I hate the manic data collection. Why? Because I have zero trust of our government's intentions. We need new systems of democracy and I don't mean the elite's stakeholder versions such as peddled by the UN, WEF, WHO, Bilderberg, Trilateral etc. I have in mind ordinary people as stakeholders.

[I should coco]

Its another way to generate income

Lets be honest, the only reason "Politics" in America is to make money for rich people. This biometric information will ultimately end up in the hands of a facewanx type company to utilise to make even more money from.

The two party pollical system is a joke, with the population pushed from pillar to post with no other option. Each party destroying the work done by the previous one, hopefully in less than 4 years.

There are barely any human rights any more, and do you think the next president will be any better than The Orange Paedo? Now the wanabes have seen what they can get away with and make themselves richer?!

I do pity good honest Americans but they are not doing anything to help themselves, they really need to stand up and do something.

Rant over

[wolfetone]

Not that one needs many excuses to not visit the United States of Backwater Cousin Lovin', but it's good they keep coming out with new ones!

[GNU Enjoyer]

Yet more reasons

to not visit the land of the nonfree.

The only thing that is going to make them stop is for everyone to refuse to visit.

[O'Reg Inalsin]

The problem here is that non US visitors have recently become assumed guilty until proven innocent, to a higher degree than before. Having your photo taken is nothing that new, especially compared to the UK.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you international socialists draw the line when the government stores your data for 75 years, but some stranger from some foreign land can move in and work security and make a collage of your daughters pictures till he rapes her.. good work!

Or even better, send your kids off to school with the children of invaders with fake names/ages - great work... thats just fine - but the USA saving your pictures for 75 years.. hell no...

If thats where you draw the line not entering the usa, i dont think you will be traveling anywhere very shortly. You have all sold out your individuality to the collective and thats all there is to it.. you are conformists for comfort till the enemy bashes your head in or jails you.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

> So you international socialists draw the line when the government stores your data for 75 years

Sound very much like the copyright the "socialist" Walt Disney fought for... Steamboat Willy is "free" since 19th November 2023 since its OFFICIAL premiere was 18. November 1928.

[Casca]

Trump is that you? It read like one of your speeches. Nah, it would contain more Biglies

[wolfetone]

Nothing more sensitive than a snowflake MAGA cuck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insular

The US has always been highly introspective and insular.

They think they are wonderful but just can’t see themselves as the rest of the world does.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see Dunning-Kruger comments...everywhere...

If you enter the UK legally (i.e dont pay criminal gang smugglers many thousands of quid to dingy you across the Channel) you will have your passport scanned and photo taken / videoed. One way or another. Same with every legal entry point to EU countries. Except Ireland, of course. Which is the usual incompetent shambles. So no change there.

For the last few decades if you enter the US legally (i.e dont pay coyotes / narco gangs $5K/$10K to smuggle you across / to the border) you have had your passport scanned and photo taken / videoed. One way or another.

Before the visa waiver programme if you wanted to visit the US you had to go to a run down office in the US Embassy on Grosvenor Square, drop off your passport, and a few days later a B2 visa stamp may or may not be in it when you picked it up. You needed a very good story for the guys doing the interview with itinerary and a return ticket. If there was no B2 stamp tough luck. No explanation given.

Sooner or later it will return to this system. Visas for travel. Everywhere. Mainly due to human rights lawyers, NGO's facilitating criminal human smugglers and the odd (overwhelmingly Muslim) terrorist. Plus the start of some kind of kinetic (non proxy) war with China / Russia etc.

And if you think the EU will be different it will go back to old EEC system of the 1970's and 1980's. Where you did not need visas exactly. But the border police could refuse you entry no reason given if they did not like the look of you. Or pick you up at any time inside the country and deport you. No reason given.

Young 'uns, not a clue about how the world really works. In the past. And in the near future.

As for the trashing of the US in some of the comments here. Get back to us when you have lived in the US for a couple of decades and start to have a clue about how it really is. Not just stuff you saw on the telly / read in the Grauniad. Just seeing the usual bollocks from low information types and the simply jealous. Sorry guys, I love so much about the UK and London (my hometown) but the US is so much better than the UK. In so many ways. Twenty or thirty years ago not so much. But now. Those of you who got to see the Troubles in Northern Ireland first hand in the 1970's and 1980's will have a very good idea of what the future of the UK will look like. Not nice.

Me, I'll take the US and it's wonderful very neighborly ordinary folk. Who the Ten Year Tourists in places like San Francisco, Seattle etc have such contempt for. See a few comments above from Yanks for examples. But as I love telling the Ten Year Tourists in SF, Seattle etc - the locals have as much contempt for you as you have for those supposed "Rednecks" . But the locals wont bother telling you because they know you will move on sooner or later. Gone. So they just politely ignore you.

So if things go really side-ways in the US I'll just get a CCW and the proper training and that pretty much takes care of that. Live a few decades in a city with extreme "gun control" laws, pay attention, and you will eventually become a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. And back In the UK? The term lambs to the slaughter comes to mind. Talk to an older Nordie from Belfast or London/Derry about how that feels. Utterly defenseless in a low intensity sectarian war. It aint fun. Although us older folk will have a real advantage due to the "street skills" learned back then. Still not going to be much fun. Staying safe. And sometimes not getting maimed / killed.

Y'all have a great time. On your damp little island.

[Jou (Mxyzptlk)]

Re: I see Dunning-Kruger comments...everywhere...

You should differentiate between the "Popular Science" Dunning Kruger effect, and the actual neutral scientific definition. The latter exchanges the "scream loudest" with "be silent and listen first".