IDを積極的に評価する | オピニオン | 英語のニュース

Opinion

Positive ID

As recent news reports and Douglas Lummis' March 17 Opinion column make clear, Japan is planning on taking photographs and fingerprints of all foreigners (except "special" permanent residents) who enter the country. The United States already has a similar program in place.

While I do dread the possibility of standing in even more lines at Narita, overall I think the suggestion has merit, and that Mr. Lummis is opposing it for all the wrong reasons.

Historically, resistance to fingerprinting has been caused by its association with criminals and law enforcement. Mr. Lummis relates the opinion that fingerprinting makes people feel "treated like criminals" and even discriminated against. The reasons for this sense of discrimination are unclear, since neither previous nor proposed fingerprinting programs place any restrictions at all on the rights of foreign residents in Japan.

And while yes, all criminals are fingerprinted, that doesn't mean all people fingerprinted are criminals. Permanent-resident foreigners in the United States have had their fingerprint on their "green card" for decades. People in high-security or sensitive jobs are fingerprinted, too. Fingerprints are just another piece of personal information meant to help prove that you are who you say you are, just like a photograph of your face, or any of the other personal information required to get a passport in the first place. I would argue that a photo is even more "personal" than fingerprints, but nobody complains about photo ID.

More surprisingly, Mr. Lummis questions the use of fingerprints over issues of accuracy, suggesting that their use is a "pseudo-science" and warning about "false positives" that could accuse the wrong person of a crime. While misidentification of prints has occurred in the past, and will no doubt happen again, the problems this has caused are completely insignificant compared to the millions of crimes solved with fingerprint evidence. To argue that we shouldn't use fingerprints because of possible errors is just like arguing that we shouldn't have courts or prisons because we might falsely convict and imprison someone. No system is perfect, but the benefits clearly outweigh any potential harm.

Mr. Lummis ends his article by stating that "the main function of fingerprinting is surely not identification, but intimidation." Unfortunately, he doesn't explain why any government would want to spend time and money intimidating its residents. The only people I can imagine being intimidated by having their fingerprints taken would be people who have committed crimes, or have plans to.

A government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens. Fingerprinting all foreign travelers will help do just that by creating a database that will help keep terrorists and other criminals out of the country. What's more, shared with law enforcement agencies globally, it can be a powerful tool to help reduce the very real threat posed by international terrorism.

(465 words)

Discussion: Compare Mr. Hards' and Mr. Lummis' articles. On which points do you agree?

Shukan ST: April 14, 2006

●英字新聞社ジャパンタイムズによる英語学習サイト。英語のニュース、英語教材、TOEIC、リスニング、英語の発音、ことわざ、などのコンテンツを無料で提供。
	脚注を印刷吹き出し表示フレーム表示
Opinion Positive ID By Scott Hards As recent news reports and Douglas Lummis' March 17 Opinion column make clear, Japan is planning on taking photographs and fingerprints of all foreigners (except "special" permanent residents) who enter the country. The United States already has a similar program in place. While I do dread the possibility of standing in even more lines at Narita, overall I think the suggestion has merit, and that Mr. Lummis is opposing it for all the wrong reasons. Historically, resistance to fingerprinting has been caused by its association with criminals and law enforcement. Mr. Lummis relates the opinion that fingerprinting makes people feel "treated like criminals" and even discriminated against. The reasons for this sense of discrimination are unclear, since neither previous nor proposed fingerprinting programs place any restrictions at all on the rights of foreign residents in Japan. And while yes, all criminals are fingerprinted, that doesn't mean all people fingerprinted are criminals. Permanent-resident foreigners in the United States have had their fingerprint on their "green card" for decades. People in high-security or sensitive jobs are fingerprinted, too. Fingerprints are just another piece of personal information meant to help prove that you are who you say you are, just like a photograph of your face, or any of the other personal information required to get a passport in the first place. I would argue that a photo is even more "personal" than fingerprints, but nobody complains about photo ID. More surprisingly, Mr. Lummis questions the use of fingerprints over issues of accuracy, suggesting that their use is a "pseudo-science" and warning about "false positives" that could accuse the wrong person of a crime. While misidentification of prints has occurred in the past, and will no doubt happen again, the problems this has caused are completely insignificant compared to the millions of crimes solved with fingerprint evidence. To argue that we shouldn't use fingerprints because of possible errors is just like arguing that we shouldn't have courts or prisons because we might falsely convict and imprison someone. No system is perfect, but the benefits clearly outweigh any potential harm. Mr. Lummis ends his article by stating that "the main function of fingerprinting is surely not identification, but intimidation." Unfortunately, he doesn't explain why any government would want to spend time and money intimidating its residents. The only people I can imagine being intimidated by having their fingerprints taken would be people who have committed crimes, or have plans to. A government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens. Fingerprinting all foreign travelers will help do just that by creating a database that will help keep terrorists and other criminals out of the country. What's more, shared with law enforcement agencies globally, it can be a powerful tool to help reduce the very real threat posed by international terrorism. (465 words) Discussion: Compare Mr. Hards' and Mr. Lummis' articles. On which points do you agree? Shukan ST: April 14, 2006 (C) All rights reserved