On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 22:29:06 +0000, JMB99 wrote:

> On 07/02/2024 20:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> When I was there I got the impression you had to physically visit the
>> DMV, which was an annual thing anyway so they could check you hadn't
>> moved house without telling them
>
>
> I copied some of the comments to a friend in the US he did not agree
> with them

I have a feeling your friend may be confusing two separate tales of woe
here, so I'll only respond to the parts relevant to mine:

>
> QUOTE HIS REPLY
>
> His claim sounds very suspicious to me, unless it was a very long time
> ago.

About 5 years

>
> For a start, US Embassies and Consulates don’t provide fingerprinting
> services.

Well yes. That's exactly what I said.

> They refer you to a local law enforcement agency, such as the
> Metropolitan Police in London.

The Metropolitan Police in London are about 1,300 miles away, which would
be a shade inconvenient. In this case, they helpfully hunted down a
retired US cop, as I said.

> Secondly, any identification or document issued or signed by a Federal
> agency has always been accepted by all States with no exceptions other
> than also meeting local requirements for driver licenses and voter
> registration. A Federal agency can’t issue or certify those things, or
> any other State controlled document, so I don’t know what forms the
> person was referring to.

That fact he doesn't know what he's talking about is indeed obvious, but
might "not knowing what the forms [were]" more helpfully have been an
indication he should put a plug in it? I suspect that his experience with
getting his driving license issued may be slightly different than the
procedures for security/integrity vetting. No, I don't intend to go into
more detail than that (although it wouldn't be THAT hard for someone to
work out the industry I'm in I'm sure, I've been using this email address
for 20 years or so after all and I'm sure there are plenty of breadcrumbs)
because I prefer not to give too much information online, and because it's
also no skin off my nose if your friend believes me or not.

[irrelevant discussion of driving licenses and student ID snipped]

In message <uq1jg2$1iee$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 03:57:54 on Thu, 8 Feb 2024,
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
>According to JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>:
>>On 07/02/2024 20:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> When I was there I got the impression you had to physically visit the
>>> DMV, which was an annual thing anyway so they could check you hadn't
>>> moved house without telling them
>>
>>I copied some of the comments to a friend in the US he did not agree
>>with them
>
>Hi, I live in the U.S. too. Every US state is different,

Not just that, each county in each state. Some are dry, often have
different sales tax (which is why products are advertised less sales
tax), and so on.

>often in
>strange and arbitrary ways

I thought the programme was supposed to be rolled out nationwide as a
post 9/11 response. With individual states losing some of their Federal
highway grants if they didn't comply.

>so I believe his bit about the pointless Georgia fingerprint.

It works well if you have a lost/stolen driving licence, or in my case
upgrading from whatever they call a provisional licence to a full
licence.

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:13:51 -0000 (UTC), Clank
<clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:04:19 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>
>> According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>>In message <upr0jc$bsc6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:58:36 on Mon, 5 Feb
>>>2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>
>>>>Even the UK government doesn't have my fingerprints.
>>>
>>>Odd how people will give their smartphone provider (almost always
>>>outside the reach of GDPR) their fingerprints.
>>>
>>>ps Anyone with a US Driving Licence or Green Card has had to provide
>>> fingerprints for over 20urs. Then there's "aliens" entering the USA
>>> on Visa Waiver.
>>
>> I've had US driving licenses for over 50 years and never provided
>> fingerprints. They all use photos.
>
>Actually, you've just reminded me of the one time I have been
>fingerprinted by the US authorities. Given the experience, I am not, as
>it turns out, terribly surprised they're not taking fingerprints for
>passports or at the border - they need to get their practices somewhere
>out of the 1940s first.
>
They took mine and my wife's at SFO in 2019.

On 08/02/2024 04:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:45 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>>> other than marketing purposes?
>>
>> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
>> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
>> account.
>>
> What if you don't have Norfolk ancestry? ;-)

Then you'll be limited to ten accounts.

In message <uq107h$1k6j3$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:29:06 on Wed, 7 Feb
2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 07/02/2024 20:39, Roland Perry wrote:
>> When I was there I got the impression you had to physically visit the
>> DMV, which was an annual thing anyway so they could check you hadn't
>> moved house without telling them
>
>
>I copied some of the comments to a friend in the US he did not agree
>with them
>
>
>QUOTE HIS REPLY
>
>His

Who is this him"?

>claim sounds very suspicious to me, unless it was a very long time ago.
>
>For a start, US Embassies and Consulates don’t provide fingerprinting
>services.

Oh, is this about the green card?

>They refer you to a local law enforcement agency, such as the
>Metropolitan Police in London. They used to give you a form, but now
>you can download it online and present it as needed.

I think the fingerprint was taken at immigration in the USA. The embassy
in London does masses of paperwork, interviews candidates, sends them
for a medical, and if everything checks out puts a 'temporary resident'
visa stamp in your passport which allows you to get as far as the
regular immigrations desks; who then take you off into a back office to
do the rest of the induction.

>Secondly, any identification or document issued or signed by a Federal
>agency has always been accepted by all States with no exceptions other
>than also meeting local requirements for driver licenses and voter
>registration.

Green cards are nothing to do with driving licences (or voter
registration), and are accepted all across the USA.

>A Federal agency can’t issue or certify those things, or any other
>State controlled document, so I don’t know what forms the person was
>referring to.

Is whatever Homeland Security/Border Control was called that week not a
Federal Agency?

>CONTINUED
>
>I don’t think so. His bit about having a Federal government office
>having you sign forms for States doesn’t ring true, not in the past
>248 years, anyway.

See above regarding the issuing of Green Cards.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 09:43:59 +0000, Ken wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:13:51 -0000 (UTC), Clank <clank75@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:04:19 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>>>In message <upr0jc$bsc6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:58:36 on Mon, 5 Feb
>>>>2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>Even the UK government doesn't have my fingerprints.
>>>>
>>>>Odd how people will give their smartphone provider (almost always
>>>>outside the reach of GDPR) their fingerprints.
>>>>
>>>>ps Anyone with a US Driving Licence or Green Card has had to provide
>>>> fingerprints for over 20urs. Then there's "aliens" entering the
>>>> USA on Visa Waiver.
>>>
>>> I've had US driving licenses for over 50 years and never provided
>>> fingerprints. They all use photos.
>>
>>Actually, you've just reminded me of the one time I have been
>>fingerprinted by the US authorities. Given the experience, I am not, as
>>it turns out, terribly surprised they're not taking fingerprints for
>>passports or at the border - they need to get their practices somewhere
>>out of the 1940s first.
>>
> They took mine and my wife's at SFO in 2019.

Yeah, I was taking John's assertion that they didn't ("This makes me
wonder what the actual utility of fingerprints vs. photos is. If the North
Americans don't neeed them, why does Schengen?" on Tuesday) at face
value. Turns out that it's false.

It's been a long while since I went through US border control, it's a
place I try to avoid as much as possible. I have been through Canadian
more frequently recently, but to be honest I don't recall if they collect
them or not - having prints collected at the border is so routine these
days it's pretty unremarkable and not something that sticks in the memory.

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 04:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:45 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>>>> other than marketing purposes?
>>>
>>> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
>>> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
>>> account.
>>>
>> What if you don't have Norfolk ancestry? ;-)
>
> Then you'll be limited to ten accounts.

Or 20 if you’re wearing sandals.

Actually computer savvy folks should be able to count up to 1023 on their
fingers, so long as the accounts in question allow multiple fingers to be
used.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2024 04:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:45 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>>>>> other than marketing purposes?
>>>>
>>>> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
>>>> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
>>>> account.
>>>>
>>> What if you don't have Norfolk ancestry? ;-)
>>
>> Then you'll be limited to ten accounts.
>
> Or 20 if you’re wearing sandals.
>
> Actually computer savvy folks should be able to count up to 1023 on their
> fingers, so long as the accounts in question allow multiple fingers to be
> used.
>
> Sam
>

Though you do run the risk of 6 (decimal) being taken the wrong way.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2024 04:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:45 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>>>>>> other than marketing purposes?
>>>>>
>>>>> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
>>>>> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
>>>>> account.
>>>>>
>>>> What if you don't have Norfolk ancestry? ;-)
>>>
>>> Then you'll be limited to ten accounts.
>>
>> Or 20 if you’re wearing sandals.
>>
>> Actually computer savvy folks should be able to count up to 1023 on their
>> fingers, so long as the accounts in question allow multiple fingers to be
>> used.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> Though you do run the risk of 6 (decimal) being taken the wrong way.

:-)

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 11:21:43 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 08/02/2024 04:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:45 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>>>>> other than marketing purposes?
>>>>
>>>> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
>>>> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
>>>> account.
>>>>
>>> What if you don't have Norfolk ancestry? ;-)
>>
>> Then you'll be limited to ten accounts.
>
>Or 20 if you’re wearing sandals.
>
>Actually computer savvy folks should be able to count up to 1023 on their
>fingers, so long as the accounts in question allow multiple fingers to be
>used.

Obl. joke: There are 10 types of people - those who understand binary and
those who don't.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 11:21:43 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2024 04:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:49:45 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>>>>>> other than marketing purposes?
>>>>>
>>>>> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
>>>>> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
>>>>> account.
>>>>>
>>>> What if you don't have Norfolk ancestry? ;-)
>>>
>>> Then you'll be limited to ten accounts.
>>
>> Or 20 if you’re wearing sandals.
>>
>> Actually computer savvy folks should be able to count up to 1023 on their
>> fingers, so long as the accounts in question allow multiple fingers to be
>> used.
>
> Obl. joke: There are 10 types of people - those who understand binary and
> those who don't.

There are 11 types of people - those who understand unary and those who
don’t!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>I thought the programme was supposed to be rolled out nationwide as a
>post 9/11 response. With individual states losing some of their Federal
>highway grants if they didn't comply.

REAL ID was yet another 9/11 overreaction that was supposed to keep us
safe from bad people wearing turbans, with the higner security
licenses feeding into a national shared database. After 20 years the
database does not exist and the IDs remain optional, so it's hard to
argue that there is still some problem that it will solve.

>>so I believe his bit about the pointless Georgia fingerprint.
>
>It works well if you have a lost/stolen driving licence, or in my case
>upgrading from whatever they call a provisional licence to a full
>licence.

I still don't understand why the photo isn't sufficient. Unless
perhaps someone decided to save money and only store the fingerprint
and not your photo.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>Secondly, any identification or document issued or signed by a Federal
>>agency has always been accepted by all States with no exceptions other
>>than also meeting local requirements for driver licenses and voter
>>registration.

I agree that's word salad.

>Green cards are nothing to do with driving licences (or voter
>registration), and are accepted all across the USA.

Actually, most Americans have no idea what a green card looks like,
and I don't think I've ever seen one of the newish plastic ones.

I would guess that most adult green card holders also have driving
licenses, and people are a lot more familiar with them. Not totally
familiar, there are endless stories of people with licenses from the
state of New Mexico being told that we don't accept licenses from
foreign countries.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 07/02/2024 09:49, Certes wrote:
> On 07/02/2024 09:25, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 19:24:37 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:33:58 +0100
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06.02.2024 14:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <upr0jc$bsc6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:58:36 on Mon, 5 Feb
>>>>>> 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even the UK government doesn't have my fingerprints.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Odd how people will give their smartphone provider (almost always
>>>>>> outside the reach of GDPR) their fingerprints.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will give my smartphone itself my fingerprints, but the data from the
>>>>> fingerprint scans does not get sent on to the phone provider. (Obviously
>>>>> I have to take their word for it, but the feature has been around for
>>>>> years as has the claim, and as a high profile phone manufacturer, it is
>>>>> likely that lots of people have tried their best to get through the
>>>>> security and would have made a loud noise if they found any sort of
>>>>> evidence that the claims made by the manufacturer were wrong.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think any company that got found out for secretly keeping user
>>>> fingerprints would be absolutely crucified , not just in the media but
>>>> by EU privacy laws too.
>>>
>>> https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/6300638
>>
>> If fingerprints arn't even as good as a password why does anyone use them
>> other than marketing purposes?
>
> They're easier to remember, less vulnerable to snooping and faster to
> type in. Of course, you must always use a different finger for each
> account.

And remember to change the prints frequently.

In message <uq3gba$b71$2@gal.iecc.com>, at 21:16:26 on Thu, 8 Feb 2024,
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
>According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>>Secondly, any identification or document issued or signed by a Federal
>>>agency has always been accepted by all States with no exceptions other
>>>than also meeting local requirements for driver licenses and voter
>>>registration.
>
>I agree that's word salad.
>
>>Green cards are nothing to do with driving licences (or voter
>>registration), and are accepted all across the USA.
>
>Actually, most Americans have no idea what a green card looks like,

Most Americans have no need to know.

>and I don't think I've ever seen one of the newish plastic ones.

They've been around over 20yrs now.

>I would guess that most adult green card holders also have driving
>licenses, and people are a lot more familiar with them. Not totally
>familiar, there are endless stories of people with licenses from the
>state of New Mexico being told that we don't accept licenses from
>foreign countries.

It's way past time they put geography on the US school syllabus.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uq3ecf$28o$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 20:42:55 on Thu, 8 Feb 2024,
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:
>According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
>>I thought the programme was supposed to be rolled out nationwide as a
>>post 9/11 response. With individual states losing some of their Federal
>>highway grants if they didn't comply.
>
>REAL ID was yet another 9/11 overreaction that was supposed to keep us
>safe from bad people wearing turbans, with the higner security
>licenses feeding into a national shared database. After 20 years the
>database does not exist and the IDs remain optional, so it's hard to
>argue that there is still some problem that it will solve.
>
>>>so I believe his bit about the pointless Georgia fingerprint.
>>
>>It works well if you have a lost/stolen driving licence, or in my case
>>upgrading from whatever they call a provisional licence to a full
>>licence.
>
>I still don't understand why the photo isn't sufficient.

When the scheme was introduced there was no viable face-recognition
equipment to replace the fingerprint-recognition equipment. So you'd
need specially trained people to verify the photo, which is also
susceptible to fraud by corruption or coercion.

The operative would also have to type in and verify the applicant's name
and address, in order at index into the database, and that would slow
the process down by at least two orders of magnitude.

>Unless perhaps someone decided to save money and only store the
>fingerprint and not your photo.

Obviously the photo *is* stored, otherwise they couldn't print it on
your replacement driving licence.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2024 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:
> The operative would also have to type in and verify the applicant's name
> and address, in order at index into the database, and that would slow
> the process down by at least two orders of magnitude.

I was going to upload a destination to the Sat Nav in my Volkswagen but
VW have changed the software (sorry 'App') used to 'talk' to the Sat Nav.

You now need to verify yourself using a whole series of things - picture
from camera, 'machine readable driving licence' (I did not think it was
machine readable), ID card, passport.

I did not bother, I will go back to just entering the postcode in the car.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 10/02/2024 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>> The operative would also have to type in and verify the applicant's name
>> and address, in order at index into the database, and that would slow
>> the process down by at least two orders of magnitude.
>
>
>
> I was going to upload a destination to the Sat Nav in my Volkswagen but
> VW have changed the software (sorry 'App') used to 'talk' to the Sat Nav.
>
> You now need to verify yourself using a whole series of things - picture
> from camera, 'machine readable driving licence' (I did not think it was
> machine readable), ID card, passport.
>
> I did not bother, I will go back to just entering the postcode in the car.
>
>
>

I’m curious as to why VW need to identify you so accurately.

In message <uq7smn$368r3$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:51 on Sat, 10 Feb
2024, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 10/02/2024 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> The operative would also have to type in and verify the applicant's name
>>> and address, in order at index into the database, and that would slow
>>> the process down by at least two orders of magnitude.
>>
>> I was going to upload a destination to the Sat Nav in my Volkswagen but
>> VW have changed the software (sorry 'App') used to 'talk' to the Sat Nav.
>>
>> You now need to verify yourself using a whole series of things - picture
>> from camera, 'machine readable driving licence' (I did not think it was
>> machine readable), ID card, passport.
>>
>> I did not bother, I will go back to just entering the postcode in the car.
>
>I’m curious as to why VW need to identify you so accurately.

I would presume they are gathering data on the users, and therefore need
more assurance about who is the driver that day.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/02/2024 13:11, Tweed wrote:
> I’m curious as to why VW need to identify you so accurately.

So am I which is why I mentioned it!