biometric fingerprinting

Here’s what it takes to get a green card

From experience, it takes:

1) Money.  A green card application and the biometrics interview cost $1070 all told.

2) A lawyer.  You can do the process on your own without a lawyer, but the reams of paperwork you have to fill out to apply are confusing.  I’m overly educated, used to complex documents, and my first language is English.  I *still* needed a lawyer.

3) In part that’s because, during the application process, if you want to leave the country you have to get dispensation from the courts.  Which costs more money, and I seriously could not have made head nor tail of that process without my lawyer.  Your parent is dying?  Too bad.  The court has to say it’s okay to travel.

4) A sponsor.  You must be sponsored by a citizen family member or your employer who will vouch that no American can do your job.

5) Patience.  This process takes a long time.

6) A biometrics interview.  I was fingerprinted, had my retina scanned, and had my photo taken. If, for example, you’ve dyed your hair since you filled out your application, they will quibble with you about whether your application is accurate.

7) A background check.  On your application you testify that you haven’t been involved with terrorism or genocide and immigration services has to corroborate that.  They will also check your employment history, where you’ve lived, etc etc.

8) More patience.

When you get your card, it’s the size of a credit card.  You know how credit cards have a magnetic stripe on the back with your information on it?  The back of a green card is *entirely* magnetic stripe.  Your entire life history is on there.  Your green card application also has to be updated every ten years.  So you don’t just get one and then get to do whatever you like.  You also have to update immigration services any time you move or you’re in violation of your green card arrangement.

If I had been prevented from returning to the U.S. after a visit to my country of origin while on my green card I would have been left without a) a place to stay, b) money, c) reliable access to my lawyer, and d) my job in the U.S. would have been in jeopardy, thereby threatening my ability to pay for my housing, car, and other bills in the U.S.  I would have had no infrastructure, because I’ve lived in the U.S. longer than in my country of origin (23 years as opposed to 22).  And that’s not even taking into account that many, many people with green cards are trying to escape abuse, torture, and threats to their life in their country of origin.  Their physical and mental safety is in grave danger.

Trump’s act suggests that green card holders are NOT already vetted within an inch of their lives (patently untrue) and that it is at best an inconvenience to people to not get back into the U.S. (again, completely untrue).  It is a monstrous, fear-mongering act of security theatre rather than anything that will make the country safe.

anonymous asked:

Looking at the Sokovia accords it's no wonder why Steve, Mr "My best friend was kidnapped had his rights taken away from him" would be against the accords. The thing is im wondering is why the fuck would Tony supported them. Shit like "Any enhanced individuals who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples" and "All enhanced individuals with innate powers who agree to sign the Accords must wear tracking bracelets at all" (1

(2 are 100% against several human rights and actually very concerning. Tony should know, being a “Friend” of Bruce, that Ross would be extremely interested in recreating others powers and that whole “give the government your DNA” shit 100% gives him the opportunity to do that. Why the hell would anyone agree to those accords?


The accords are a bitch and nobody really ends up following them. Also, tony’s a little bitch

2

The PGP Word List (“Pretty Good Privacy word list”, also called a biometric word list) is a list of words for conveying data bytes in a clear unambiguous way via a voice channel. They are analogous in purpose to the NATO phonetic alphabet used by pilots, except a longer list of words is used, each word corresponding to one of the 256 unique numeric byte values.

Each byte in a bytestring is encoded as a single word. A sequence of bytes is rendered in network byte order, from left to right. For example, the leftmost (i.e. byte 0) is considered “even” and is encoded using the PGP Even Word table. The next byte to the right (i.e. byte 1) is considered “odd” and is encoded using the PGP Odd Word table. This process repeats until all bytes are encoded. Thus, “E582” produces “topmost Istanbul”, whereas “82E5” produces “miser travesty”.

A PGP public key fingerprint that displayed in hexadecimal as

    E582 94F2 E9A2 2748 6E8B
    061B 31CC 528F D7FA 3F19

would display in PGP Words (the “biometric” fingerprint) as

    topmost Istanbul Pluto vagabond
    treadmill Pacific brackish dictator
    goldfish Medusa afflict bravado
    chatter revolver Dupont midsummer
    stopwatch whimsical cowbell bottomless

The order of bytes in a bytestring depends on Endianness.

Dad’s green card finally arrived. It’s been just over 1 year since his application and biometrics appt (fingerprinting, photo, etc.) Came with this handy little pocket to keep it in. wtf.

via Smart guns: They’re ready. Are we?

The iP1 is a so-called smart gun, also known as a “personalized” or “authorized-user-recognition” weapon. It shoots only if it is within 10 inches of a special watch, activated by the user with a five-digit PIN code for a set period—up to eight hours. The watch, which takes less than a half-second to activate, contains an RFID transponder, whose signal is recognized by a receiver inside the gun, which then unblocks the firing pin.

Though no other smart gun is as far along as the iP1, there are a host of others in development. Some employ RFID, others use biometric sensors (like fingerprint readers), while still others are working on grip-recognition approaches—like the fictional gun James Bond used in the movie Skyfall.

The problem arises, rather, from gun enthusiasts themselves, many of whom fear that smart guns are a step toward gun control, that the technologies are intrinsically unreliable, and that they are being foisted upon gun owners by ignorant do-gooders who aim to ban all guns that lack these features.Such concerns are not pure paranoia. Some people really would like to make these guns mandatory. There are also some genuine technological hurdles to be overcome and some reasonable qualms to be set at rest. For a fingerprint-reading gun, can it be made to work with blood, mud, or gloves on your hands? For an RFID gun, like the iP1, what happens if you lose the watch, or an assailant grabs it away? For any smart gun, what happens if the batteries run out? And just how superior are smart guns to old-fashioned gun locks?

Officially, neither the National Rifle Association nor the main trade group for the domestic firearm industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, opposes smart guns. They oppose only “mandates,” each asserts—though it can sometimes be hard to tell from their rhetoric.“Groups with no technical knowledge and who have a political agenda view this technology as a panacea,” says Larry Keane, general counsel of the NSSF. “It’s not as simple as they would like to make it,” he says. “There are significant challenges with marrying electronics and firearms. A gunshot generates a lot of energy and vibration. Guns require lubricants and solvents, which are hell on electronics.”