The point missing in the article is that, in order to enter the US, one needs to give the US Govt their photo and fingerprints ("biometric data") anyway.
There are two options: visa-free with the biometric data passing on the wire (no hassle), or visa (a major hassle) and biometric data passing in the airport (a minor one).
As a side note, the EU also collects photo and fingerprints from visitors now. Whereas in the US you only need to go through fingerprinting only once (or maybe "once per passport") and only on arrival, in the EU you need to go through it both on every arrival and every departure.
"The automated query can be based on:
* Identity information included in the application or in travel documents, such as name, date of
birth, national ID number, and/or
* the fingerprint of an individual."
Sounds like they could send requests to that computer system just based on publicly available information on a person like name and date of birth, even if the person never applied for a visa or tried to enter the US.
Well, a national ID number isnt usually publicly available info, even if it can be obtained by the US government through illicit means.
But yeah, it does sound that way, but certainly not clear cut to me what the situation is. I.e. does the agreement involve clauses about what to do if this is abused? Do we have a way to detect if theyre using this on non-travellers? Etc.
It's not clear how it is supposed to work in detail. But it sounds like it could be implemented in a way that makes illegitimate queries possible. It doesn't sound like they want to really ensure that you can catch those.
I played with Estonia’s e-residency and they use asymmetric cryptography for everything so the ID is public but does nothing without the corresponding private key.
This all reminds me about how RealID was vital to secure us from terrorism, and it took 20 years to get it in place... with no significant terrorist actions in that timeframe.
IMHO this level of tracking ain't worth the safety gained. Seems like safety gain is just the excuse at this point.
Is your RealID different? I’ve had one for ages and am not a US citizen. I can’t see how it could be proof of citizenship if I, a non-citizen, has one.
Not to mention that to get around RealID with flights, you just have to pay $45 and you're good to go. Since we all know that bad actors don't have access to that sort of money...
Not for roughly the last 6 months. I have been using my passport because my old drivers license doesn't expire until next year. I'll have to look closer or read the signs then. Just never noticed that.
I think a better way of describing it would be, someone broke into your house. The police said they'd patrol it, but it would take 20 years to set up. In those 20 years, no-one broke into your house. You might suspect they had other reasons for wanting to patrol outside your house.
Not my experience the last time I entered. I travelled with a friend for whom it was his first time visiting the US. He was fingerprinted, I wasn’t (I was fingerprinted a while ago on one of my previous trips.)
I have gotten fingerprinted every time i arrive, before i got a green card and after i got a green card. Not sure if its related to something else, country of origin or country im traveling from etc.
Your profile probably flagged some checks so they needed to get your fingerprints to actually confirm you are the one on the visa. I've never had to give fingerprints except for my first US visa.
Same here, went in 2019, got fingerprinted, and went again in 2021 and 2025, and they didn't even care about my ESTA, they just waved me through.
The TSA agent asked me the usual questions about where I was staying, how long I was staying, I replied, and despite having printed just about everything out, he just waved me through.
The closest I got was a "random inspection" in an airport, and the TSA agents asked for our passports and to go through our luggage, but as soon as we flashed our Danish passports they lost all interest and just waved us through.
The point of taking biometics is they can check if the same person is travelling on the same passport each subsequent visit.
Sometimes they rely on just image matching, and sometimes they ask for an additional finger scan ( but not normally all fingers of all hands like first registration ).
So perhaps if you have a generic looking face, or have changed your appearance since the first visit you are more likely to be fingerprinted.
EU changed a lot this year (EU EES and ETIAS, long delayed), so this is probably different now than it was for some people before. It should be passport + biometric in and out, with a passport and biometric enrolled once as well, and visa-free stay duration (and other activities, like criminal stuff) logged against that record as well. Previously if you entered in one country and exited in another there wasn't really any closure of the record, so they effectively didn't care, and you could stay in EU indefinitely (and enter/exit much more while also overstaying, especially if you had multiple passports or could enter/exit from different countries).
Thats why. You don't have to go thru this extra check if you use EU passport or if you have temporary/permanent residency (but not travel visa) attached to your passport.
Also worth nothing that if you’ve verified your ID on LinkedIn or anything that uses Persona or some other flavour of Palantir - the US already has all this data and much more.
I hate all this biometric scanning on all sides. As an American it makes me not want to visit the EU to avoid being scanned, and I'd understand the other way too if an EU member was visiting the us.
In the US there have been notorious mistakes of using biometrics to falsely recognize an unknown criminal. Does this happen in the EU too?
It's probably too late but we should try to get rid of this.
> In the US there have been notorious mistakes of using biometrics to falsely recognize an unknown criminal. Does this happen in the EU too?
This my major concern with biometrics and DNA databases. It makes the cops lazy. "Subjects fingerprints and DNA was found on the crime scene, so he's clearly the murderer". That flips the evidence around, suddenly "I" have to prove I'm innocent as opposed to the law proving I'm guilty.
If you can simply collect all DNA and fingerprints from a crime scene, look it up in a database and compile a list of suspects, it also eliminates the possibility that the real perpetrator didn't leave DNA or fingerprints.
Sure, DNA has its use, like "here's the murder weapon, and it has the suspects DNA and fingerprints on it". It's not a guarantee, but it's a closer match.
As for "does that happen in Europe as well", unfortunately yes. There have been cases where the police have found fingerprints and DNA and announced they had the suspect they were looking for, only for said person to be cleared weeks or months later.
As a general rule, DNA and fingerprints cannot be the sole evidence in EU courts. The law will need find more evidence before they can convict you. Also, no death penalty, and "lifetime" in the EU is usually around 10 years, so not a lot of people are found innocent after 30 years.
I suspect that false imprisonment/recognition cases are lessened with biometrics, not increased. I absolutely believe you can point me to individual cases though.
Your DNA and fingerprints are literally everywhere you go, and they don't decay as soon as you leave. Hell, even passing close by a person can transfer your DNA to their clothes.
If the cops have a DNA Database, they "just" need to collect all DNA from a crime scene to compile a list of suspects, and by doing so, they're flipping the question of guilt around, you're no longer innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven innocent. You now have to prove you didn't "do it".
If you have a recent EU passport (like 6-8 years), biometrics like fingerprints are already in the chip, and you won't need to be fingerprinted upon arrival or departure, at least in theory, I wouldn't be surprised if some bureaucrat decided that the passport data can't be trusted and we'll fingerprint everybody anyway.
So let the people who want to go to the US do that and don't send data from the vast majority of people who will never visit the US there.
It's claimed that only data of traveler's will be retrieved by the US but it's not 2012 anymore, we all know better.
Both the USA and the EU are doing Evil here. However had, this is not solely confind to biometric data only - this is about selling data to outside agencies, so the EU betrays EU citizens here.
Which you don't need to do, because the fingerprints are in the passport (cryptographically secure so only an authorized reader can access them, and only when able to OCR the inside of the passport). They're signed by your issuing government, so they're much harder to forge than the physical document.
Most countries' passports don't include fingerprint data. The US passport application process is entirely digital/by mail, for example, with no fingerprinting at all.
Not those issued in Denmark or Ireland, apparently [1], though I see other sources saying Denmark does fingerprint now. Most countries don't fingerprint children.
How do they manage that? Do you have to visit a government office to get a passport? I only have a UK passport and it definitely does not include my finger prints as it was obtained by post.
In fact, you have to do it twice; once to apply and once to receive it.
In Poland at least, the queues are often a few weeks long, and you have to book online in advance. If it's summer season and you need to travel soon, you usually have to go to some office in Buttfuckville at the other end of the country to get a reasonable date. Passport office hunting is an established practice for people who need one ASAP.
If you're a kid, both of your parents need to be present with you at the appointment at the same time, so they have to coordinate time off work. The fun begins if they're divorced and one lives in a different country.
At least, unlike in the UK/US, the process itself is pretty painless. I got mine just after I turned 18 (see above), and all I really needed to do was to go there, bring my ID, fill a single form and give them the fingerprints.
The process in the US is you open an online form, type in your details, and upload a JPEG of your face! Then you receive a passport in the mail a few weeks later! I would say that is a lot less painful than the Polish process.
The average US border official is a (angry) moron (with a badge and a gun). They've literally fingerprinted me on entry with a US passport because they were too stupid to figure out US citizens don't have to do that. I have been interrogated by CBP to ask if I "work in the country" despite being a citizen. Anything that changes the process from the simplest one-size-fits all will be fucked up, they cannot differentiate the process between foreigner and citizen let alone EU vs some other place.
Edit: Every time I share my border stories I get accused of lying or having done something wrong. I have much much crazier ones. No one believes it until it happens to them. Count yourself lucky if you've never been strip searched or imprisoned by these psychopaths, any belief they are reasonable are formed because you were lucky and have a naïve sort of optimism that if you do everything right it won't happen to you.
The average US border official is just like the average official(and non-official) anywhere; mostly bored, waiting for their workday to be over so they can go home and do the things that they actually enjoy.
Not to say they don't make mistakes or don't fully read/understand their systems. A co-worker was former LEO, had his id stolen at that time. We were traveling back from an a vendor site across the border, the border agent misunderstood the system alert from "double check this guys docs to make sure he is who he says he is" to "Anyone using this id is traveling under a false name!" So he got held and questioned, called his former supervisor, CPB supervisor came and showed him how to get a travel redress number.
Amusingly, since we were traveling together, I got his luggage off the carousel and kept it with me as I watched them question him. After some time they decided to look at his bags and came looking for them, I told them I had them and he was with me. They took the bags and didn't even want to speak with me.
>The average US border official is just like the average official(and non-official) anywhere;
False. CBP is well known as bottom rung in terms of hiring of federal LEO and an employer of last resorts. For example, one of the most prestigious is the Marshals Service, and for instance HSI is typically far closer to "average" or above than CBP is. If you're dealing with something like a DEA or FBI agent that is roughly 'average' and CBP you are roughly dealing with the 'moron' end and roughly the professional and intelligence opposite of the Marshals.
U.S. border agents really are just worse. Much worse. (I can't say what racial profiling adds to that, I can only speak to my own experiences).
I've been routinely grilled and extensively searched many times just crossing between the U.S. and Canada - the most hilarious instance being when I was crossing from Yukon Territory back to Alaska some 10 years ago.
In Latin America, things are considerably more professional, and the government officials don't act like they hate you and just want you to go away. Europe's fine too.
From what I've heard, Canada is actually a lot worse than the US.
I was traveling as part of a party of five (different travel dates, separate ETA filings, no apparent connection). One of us didn't get an ETA. Another got one just before the trip (and it was a 13-year-old child). The rest of us got ours immediately, but I was questioned at the border for 10+ minutes with no apparent reason, and then allowed in without a comment.
From what I heard anecdotally, Canadian officers are trained to “interrogate” everyone believing the added duress will cause people to slip up and reveal they are really a terrorist or some such.
I'm a US citizen, living in the EU and have global entry, etc... I've been to Canada once on business and they asked more questions than I've ever had asked on all my frequent travels back and forth EU-US.
> In Latin America, things are considerably more professional, and the government officials don't act like they hate you and just want you to go away.
Depends. Someone I know had a terrible experience crossing into Belize on a land border. Was held there for two hours while they "verified" something. Seemed like a power-tripping agent.
I would characterize Belize as part of the Anglosphere instead of Latin America. Last colonized by Britain as their last European influence on governance and only English as the official language. The anglosphere has the nastiest border controls in my experience.
US citizens aren't fingerprinted on entry, regardless of race(!). They don't even have the fingerprint machines in the citizen line at any airport I've ever gone through, which is why I suspect GP went to the wrong place.
Every port of entry I’ve been in, they have the same setup at every booth, which definitely includes the fingerprint machines. Even Texas, though I just got waved through due to the creepy gait/face recognition thing without stopping.
I’m a minority who, despite visually fitting the stereotype of a plane hijacker, have found our passport control people to be nothing but professional and courteous. The overall system seems to be pretty efficient about moving people through, despite the airports I’m going through being out of date and not set up for the volumes of traffic they get.
This is a marked contrast to the rest of our immigration, border patrol, and airline security people who are lazy and needlessly aggro as a rule.
But if you asked me to trade the passport check experience of entering the US with the experiences I’ve had trying to get into France or Germany I’d pick the US hands down. Especially Frankfurt. WTF are they doing over there?
The issue with stories like yours is that they don't really tell us anything. The incidence of racial profiling is low enough that some people, such as yourself, will never have a problem, ever. But that doesn't mean there aren't problems, and that they don't crop up often enough to be something we should be really uncomfortable with letting happen.
In my experience, the airports could handle the passenger volume, but they lack the people. I've entered the US 25–30 times, and almost every time, there have been long lines and empty immigration counters.
Which EU passports don't (other than below some age, lack of fingers etc.)? For a while some older ones might not have, but not sure if the expiry would still be long enough?
Edit: seems like Ireland is the odd one out (Danemark could, but seems to fingerprint).
Also think espionage/intelligence - those passports won't be forgeries (as they will gov issued), but there will be people travelling around the world with multiple "identities" shall we say, and this is going to make all that much harder.
Probably not high, but forgeries are the people of most concern. Most people are honest travelers (either on business or vacation), and will go back home. Most people only commit crimes of the type "I didn't know this thing was illegal here: it is legal and common back home" - and the agent who catches it responds "I find a bunch of you every day who didn't know that - just put it in the destroy bucket and have fun" (technically they can arrest you for trying to bring something illegal in, but they know this is an honest mistake that isn't worth doing anything more about)
The forgeries are rare, but they are also the people customs cares most about. Those people who are planning to commit a serious crime of some sort.
It probably matters where, because the longest waiting times were always in the US for me. Especially since digital passports, the queue into the EU is always extremely quick with those, while it’s still the same into the US (at least in Boston and Los Angeles, where I usually land).
> in the EU you need to go through it both on every arrival and every departure.
You absolutely don't. If you've done it once on your passport/ID you don't need to do it again. And infact there are fast track autonomous lanes that you can just scan your EU passport with biometric chip and fly through. (In theory, there's always idiots who don't realise they don't have it)
Recent changes to EES system have been a disaster, and as op has pointed out, people do have to scan their biometrics more than once coming from a non-EU country. In some cases even if you are a EU resident in case the airport has no specific queues.
> Recent changes to EES system have been a disaster
How ?
> People do have to scan their biometrics more than once coming from a non-EU country.
If the data hasn't had time to propagate then it's just a flag that you need to do it.
> In some cases even if you are a EU resident in case the airport has no specific queues.
Yes, if I arrive in Firenze airport there is maybe 2 people working on the border, if I'm in the Schengen, I don't even need to be checked. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
> People without EU citizenship also enter EU.
Clearly I'm not talking about these cases. You're not from the EU, you need to follow the rules. Sorry.
I just visited Italy. We absolutely passed through biometric scans on arrival and departure from FCO (US passports, vacation so no paper visa).
And then again at DUB outbound (US pre-clearance, so the normal Global Entry kiosk).
All of this was expected. The only thing that surprise me was there was no passport check or any other custom/immigration at Dublin on the inbound leg. We just walked from the arrival gate to the departure gate and that was that.
> And then again at DUB outbound (US pre-clearance, so the normal Global Entry kiosk).
Pre clearance from the US means nothing for Ireland, it's also not Schengen.
> The only thing that surprise me was there was no passport check or any other custom/immigration at Dublin on the inbound leg.
Because you've done it on your outbound. Ireland is also a bit more relaxed, but at the same time they can randomely ask you for your papers.
> from the arrival gate to the departure gate
If you don't pass the control, if I'm not wrong you'll never need to be rechecked. The only place it has happened to me within EU was between Ireland -> Germany -> Greece. Probably because Ireland isn't Schengen
Ireland is not in Schengen, so you were doing an international-to-international transfer. You normally don't have to go through immigration and customs for those, unless there are specific legal requirements or the airport is poorly organized.
Sure, but we went down the same hallway as everybody who was stopping in Ireland. There was just a sign at passport check with an arrow that said go on by. If I had wanted to stay in Ireland, I could’ve just walked out of the airport.
Dublin is amazingly chill with passport/visa/immigration.
I once needed an actual stamp in my passport, and the agent literally apologized to me for taking up the space. I thought she might be messing with me, but not, entirely serious.
With the introduction of EES system (whose implementation was completed only a few months ago), the full data of non-EU citizens gets collected the first time we enter the EU and then we have to verify it every subsequent time.
Not much of a hassle at airports due to the availability of self-service kiosks, somewhat of a hassle when crossing with a car, and infuriatingly annoying when using a mass transit option like a bus or a train where everyone has to step outside and wait in line to do that, adding about 20-30 minutes to the border crossing.
We used the EES system in Italy, I think (cattle gates with passport scan and photo). The line was still pretty long and slow. Mostly because people couldn’t figure out how to get their passport scanned properly or they weren’t looking at the camera or any number of other things that there were signs explaining what to do and people just couldn’t be bothered doing it correctly
Definitely depends on the ratio of first time visitors since the introduction of the EES system (whose data needs collecting) vs returning visitors (whose data only needs verifying). I was going by my last experience, but I waited way longer than an hour in the past.
With the major distinction being that a lot of Europeans have absolutely no intention of ever visiting the United States, a country with a history of sometimes more, sometimes less hostility and aggressive intelligence agencies.
If you want to visit a hellhole, go through the hassle. But don't hand out all of our data just because you want to do joyrides.
Can't see where "the major distinction" lies. It's also true that a lot of US citizens have absolutely no intention of ever visiting Europe -- as to hostilities, well the last two World Wars didn't exactly start in the US.
Does the EU really collect that, or only sometimes? I know the EU reserves the right to collect all that, but do they in practice?
I haven't been to the EU in a decade, but last time I was there I was standing in the customs line for non-EU residents and someone official saw my US passport in hand and directed me to the much shorter/faster EU citizens line. I walked right through customs without being checked at all.
Its changed in the last year or so. Officially it started in October 2025, it's been a bit of a disaster in terms of implementation. It's called the Entry/Exit System (EES)
I've had my fingerprints taken every time I've been to the US, although not always all the fingers every time, presumably on subsequent visits if you have passport + right hand matches, they don't bother scanning left hand or thumbs.
I've certainly had the full scan on multiple occasions though.
10 years ago I walked right past the French immigration officer by accident because I didn't know where I was going. He yelled at me to get back in line, quickly stamped my passport and then shooed my along. EU has become a lot more like the US. I'd probably been detained if I had done that in the US. Last year visiting Switzerland they had these machines that auto adjust a camera to your height and there was no way you were going past the barriers by accident so you are getting your photo taken.
Things have changed in the last 10 years. I recalled from 2016, while some countries like Sweden were super strict about entry/departure (lady manually counted number of days on passport) others had been so lax it was comical: France would take one quick glance at you and stamp the passport, Ireland would at least test if you could answer a simple question with the stamp already pre positioned on the passport upon answering said question.
I presume this electronic system finally accounts for all of these differences and provides a minimum standard for exit/entry. Now it being digitized there is no wiggle room on exit/entry. Frankly with how lousy US exit/entry seems for foreigners, I don't mind the EU wanting to maintain strict standards for visitors to their borders as well. I wouldn't even mind them being extra rough on us Americans. Its totally understandable. Preferably take all the US diplomat passports to a back room as well while they are at it.
About the same time ago I walked out of the airport in Tel Aviv and a military guy with an assault rifle asked to see my passport. This was after having gone through passport and customs checks inside of course. :)
> Now it being digitized there is no wiggle room on exit/entry.
Yes. Because the primary issue is it was too easy to fly under the radar once you were in the Schengen zone.
Also in 2026 there are security threats which means tighter borders is a necessity.
Clearly in 2026, the easiest way to achieve compliance at all Schengen borders accross 29 countries is to digitise it, including biometrics.
Yes, to put it politely, there have been "teething issues" in its implementation. But given the sheer scale of the change, that is only to be expected. I think any of us working in tech would agree that it would be delusional to think such a thing would be perfect from day zero.
Well just to clarify as I am not sure if you understood what I am saying but when I said wiggle room I was referring to the different standards of enforcement applied by different countries. This is why I gave personal anecdotes. Im sure all EU countries have days where enforcement is strict and other days where enforcement is more lax. The problems implementing the digital system are a problem but it is a separate issue from the intended design goals of the system. Namely now you have a minimum layer of immigration enforcement across the union given that it is a unified digitized system. It is still more fair and straightforward than the US system and I commend them for setting a minimum standard that I hope others can aspire to. I am unsure about the privacy implications. It is a tough subject to think about. It was nice not having to have any stress going through immigration a year ago. But that is my bias as a young person feeling anxious of first traveling to Europe and being excited for seeing the countries and meeting the unique people for the first time.
The EU is very sporadic. I walked straight into Sweden from a flight from Iraq and customs was not even there, and passport control waved everyone through with the most cursory of glances.
I'm not sure the customs official knows where you came from (unless they explicitly ask, of course), because in my experience normally you get off the airplane and join a common queue. I think your passport counts a lot more when it comes to how strict the scrutiny is going to be. I'm assuming you're American, if you had an Iraqi passport, maybe you would have to answer a few more questions.
Not the EU, but I once accidentally entered Switzerland in the Zürich airport. The passport counter was unmanned and the doorway next to it was open, so I assumed there is another checkpoint somewhere further.
When a guy started chasing after me 30 seconds later I realized my assumption was wrong. But there really wasn't a way to know.
Unless it has changed recently Germany has no general database of biometric data. Of course law enforcement has for the cases they work on, but for the average passport holder the data gets destroyed once the passport has been accepted by the citizen. So it remains only decentralized in passport chips.
It's not clear to me if this would allow access to all biometric data, or "just" to that of people crossing the US border?
And for the latter, what data are we talking about? If it's mostly fingerprints, don't those already get collected upon crossing the border? And can't they already be read from a passport's chip?
I guess the US can freely request data on any citizen. The home countries don't know if you are actually traveling into the US. Direct flights are not the only option to reach the US.
It's just for people crossing the border, and yeah it's mostly fingerprints. The point is mainly to detect fraudulent passports, and the rest of the data is self explanatory (the US obviously is interested in people visiting that EU agencies have flagged for being potential terrorists).
In border security there are generally two camps, one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks, and generally makes travelling easy for the average person, and the other is like traditional cops using traditional tactics… the kind that will miss the person smuggling a kilogram of cocaine in their suitcase but will go after the old man who didn’t declare a pair of socks he bought on a trip. They generally make travel awful.
Support the intelligence-driven side of border security and reject the traditional cop camp.
Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.
In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:
1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)
2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data
Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces
Flock is run by incompetants. Their systems are comically insecure and access is easily abused. And the amount of surveillance data they routinely collect is not small. There needed to be a lot more discuss of who is doing the surveillance, how, and why before this was foisted on the public.
I want to agree with this. My fear is that governments and corporations love using technology to launder evil shit. Once security is automated, entire groups of people can be quickly and effortlessly disenfranchised by flipping a bool on a server somewhere. No appeal, no recourse, no human faces. You get to find out from some LLM that you aren't allowed in the country anymore because the "algorithm" identitifed you as a risk. uwu so sawd
It only works if the "intellence-driven security" is being developed in good faith.
That already happens. Witness all the random "bans" and "pauses" Trump has instituted against various nationalities and groups of people at the border.
> one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks
History shows that the main question with government and data collection is not "what X makes life easier for citizens" but "who collects/uses X and for what purpose". In the happy case, this may be all well and peachy. The case people rightfully worry about is not that case.
Hey that’s not what “intelligence” means. What you’re arguing for is data-driven automation, taking the human out of the loop. You’re describing “computer says no” level border control, with Google-level human support (ie none) and somehow spinning that as better than real human cops doing what they do best.
Maybe this resonates in the American case where cops are notoriously undertrained and over-violent, but I gotta say it sounds extremely dystopian to me. All-power computerized control isn’t “intelligence”.
It’s also a false dichotomy. You can have lots of automation with humans in the loop. Humans can use automation to be faster and this is common.
I fail to understand the distinction between an ESTA and a visa to be honest. You need to do the paperwork in advance, pay, provide all sort of personal information, and it can be denied, and if approved only for a limited amount of time. Given that both the EU and the UK have reciprocated, it is a fiction that there exists some visa free travel between these 3 zones. And the more hassle you create, the less tourism you will get.
They're identical but countries pretend they're different. I got an evisa when I went to Indonesia and India. For each country, the process involved uploading a picture, filling in some basic details, and paying a fee. I was approved in 30 seconds for each. I'm pretty sure it was automatic.
ESTA is supposed to be a lower hurdle than a visa. But from what I've heard, approvals take longer and quite a few people get rejected.
Countries like to pretend they're still visa free, but honestly, it's just a pain in the ass and I'd rather they call it a visa. It's very, very easy to book a plane to a country, see all info indicating its visa free and you can just go, then right as you're about to head out, you decide to check for the 50th time just to be sure... and it turns out there's some "visa free process" for your country called EDtdjvubHHVJVF or some other random assortment of letters that involves a 2 hour application process and 24-72 hours (business days only) for approval results to come in. A visa would be preferable because it's more transparent.
ESTAs used to be instant for me, but last time I got one (2023) it took 2 days
The US is particularly bad as you need an ESTA to transit. I had a friend nearly caught out by that on a flight from London to Lima which involved changing in Miami. When changing plane from an international to international flight in most countries you get off a plane, maybe go through security, and then get on another plane. In the US this isn't a thing. You have to immigrate into the country for 20 minutes.
No, you land at Heathrow you don't go pass passport control if you change onto another international flight. You go through security and then into the departure lounge.
Obviously if you land at Heathrow and fly out of Manchester then sure you have to immigrate, but not at the same airport.
Same at Dubai and Qatar, Helsinki and Frankfurt, Singapore. and Seoul.
Indeed last time I transited Seoul I stayed in a hotel airside for 12 hours before my next flight.
> land at Heathrow you don't go pass passport control if you change onto another international flight. You go through security and then into the departure lounge.
This requires a Direct Airside Transit visa, unless you are a citizen of one of the exempt countries or have a visa/residence permit from certain countries (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Schengen). Applying for this visa involves going to the local visa processing centre, so it is not an online or on-arrival process, and takes around 3 weeks.
- with ESTA, your country of origin is "trusted" and individuals in general undergo a lower level of scrutiny at a US port of entry.
- with a VISA, you country of origin is "not trusted" and individuals are granted the right to travel to the US after they undergo interviews at an US embassy and get approved.
Neither is a right to enter the US. Just a right to be transported by air/ship to a US port of entry. If the CBP lets you in it is a different story.
This is the US version. Other countries have their own rules.
That's about to change, they are about to introduce a change that will require bios of all relatives, all social media accounts, email addresses, etc. Haven't looked at a US visa recently but it seems as invasive.
To apply for a visa, even a B1 visa, you have to go to a consulate and show them proof of your bank account, property you own, family details, your job and such things (supposedly to show that you are tied to your home company and not secretly trying to immigrate to the US).
Governments don't even have all this information about their own citizens reliably even if they wanted to hand it over.
For any US visa you do, and you can't take electronic items or bags with you. Costs a lot more too.
A reason I refused to go to Syria a couple of years ago. A colleague who did go said "oh I have a US (i) visa so I'm fine". I asked "how about in 20 years time when you've left a company which will pay for you to have a US visa. He hadn't considered that.
A friend of mine went to Libya on behalf of the US military about a decade ago. He is no longer eligible for a US esta and thus has to get a visa if he goes on holiday.
Last time I went to India I had to get a real visa which involved travelling to an office in London and waiting around for a couple of hours.
It's quite normal for people of "lesser powered" countries who don't have the power of passport that the US and Western European citizens do. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you would have to fly for hours to a major Russian city a couple of weeks in advance to apply for a visa to visit the UK.
When I went to Pakistan in 2010 it was even worse. Well until I gave up and then used a visa agency which just handled it all for me.
Last time I tried to go to India I went for an electronic visa, and after 7 days of "waiting" they updated it to say "declined". No explanation.
A visa allows you entry, an ESTA doesn't allow you entry but just says you're allowed to travel to the border to see if you'll be allowed entry or not.
It's more for the airline than for you. If you have an ESTA and get refused entry, the airline isn't fined for bringing someone unauthorized to the border.
It states regarding a visa:
"A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port-of-entry (generally an airport) and request permission to enter the United States. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at the port-of-entry have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States. "
That's incorrect, holding a B1/B2 US visa only allows you to arrive at the port of entry, the actual permission to enter the country is always left to the border officer interviewing you
It is legal to show up at a port of entry without any sort of anything. If all it allows you to do is show up at the port of entry it's a worthless scrap of paper.
If you show up at a US port of entry without any sort of anything the default decision is to deny entry (exceptions for Canadian citizens and citizens of a few small islands). If you show up at a US port of entry with an ESTA/visa you will most likely be allowed entry. Refusals are relatively rare.
Commercial carriers such as airlines are also not allowed to transport people who need ESTAs/visas and do not have them to the US, so in practice it's relatively difficult to even get to the port of entry without a visa.
Not for airlines and international cruise ships with US as destination. The attendants won't let you board unless you have a valid US visas. Carriers get fined if they transport individuals with no proper documents to a US port of entry.
Airlines are fined for inadmissible passengers. Whether they have a visa or not. If they have no visa but are admitted there is no such fine.
The visa is immaterial to the fine unless it conveys something beyond merely allowing you to present at a port of entry, which is allowed to basically everyone.
It shouldn't be possible for the US to request this data without the passport being physically present at a US entry facility (border, airport checkin scan, consulate) where fingerprints/photos are actually compared.
Before that point, only passport information tuples should be queryable, i.e., "Is {passport number, name, dob, pob, issue date, expiry} valid?".
We should remember that the current (and likely future) administration is actively hostile to transgender and intersex people, and persecutes US citizens with changed gender identifiers. Discrimination based on ethnicity is only one Overton-lurch away.
What a stupid, hysterical claim. This "sensitive data" is just what's on your passport, fingerprints, criminal history, and terrorism flags (from European agencies), only for people crossing the border. I don't see how you could defend not sharing any of that.
...uhm
You are happy to share your home address and everything else to securely identify you to a government acting increasingly erratic?
Because I am not.
I would be happy if terrorism-flagged people are shared across borders, but not everyone.
Remember once the dataset is there, it is not ever going to go away, regardless of who is in power
Also don't have a Facebook account, don't shop with Amazon, don't use an Android or Apple phone, don't work for a company that uses Office365. Sounds real easy doesn't it?
Most of those don't require fingerprints or photos. Those that require addresses, do so because they're literally billing and/or shipping items to you. And none of them is comparable to physically entering another country.
I, a US citizen, got fingerprinted by passport control in Austria 2 weeks ago, and they took a picture of my face and asked for personal details. That's pretty much how passport control works universally in any developed country, only the "how they get the information" changes. Sometimes they already have it and sometimes they ask for it.
You share your thoughts, ideas, likes and dislikes on American sites like this one. Possibly also have a YouTube account you've actively used daily for years. You don't seem to have a problem with that, why? I would argue the totality of your activity on American sites would be much more revealing about you than your fingerprints and home address.
Was Global Entry in the US a tactic to trick us into giving up our biometric data for speedy re-entry? I can say it's now barely faster than waiting behind the line for the stamper officials in their booths.
As an aside, I always find it amusing that as a British person that have visited both the US and the Schengen area since the new entry/exit system. Both the US and EU have taken my biometric information (i.e fingerprints) but the UK government has not.
What a surprise, I heard nobody wants to travel to the US anyways. EU leaders seem to be making concessions for pretty much nothing. USA first needs to make the country desirable to visit before discussing ways to make it easier to come into the country -__-
This is not something I have a real issue with. Most of my privacy concerns are with my own government (the USA, Flock, various TLAs have unfettered communications access in violation of the 4th amendment, etc). I think the exchange of information should be mutual though. I don't care if they want to check me out before I enter their country, seems like a basic step. However, that info should not be shared until one gets a ticket/visa to said foreign country.
Under the assumption that this framework is somewhat sane and only shares biometric data of those people who actually request an ESTA, I don't see the issue.
This data already leaks whenever you travel legally to the US, because they take it from you as a requirement of entry. All this does is let them check the data they take on entry against the provided data. Which seems fair. The fact this data is already in passports is a very different matter, but that is something the EU has done voluntarily.
I order to know who actually requested it, information needs to be shared that previously was not.
(I can think of technical schemes to limit this to less scary recipients and data, but however you do it, some necessary side-effect remains: Citizens of the EU who do not make such request cannot remain entirely unaffected.)
and yet you use american sites and services like this one, where you freely give even more personal data than fingerprints like your interests, thoughts, and more!
I see comments like this all over hackernews but the truth is you actually don't care. You have a choice to not use HN/Reddit/YouTube/whatever but here you are.
The value was always in the connection not any individual datum.
Besides, I choose what information I link to this identity do I not? You're welcome to my views and their connection to each other. Doesn't mean I want you to know everything else.
What is more personal than the contents of your mind? Each interaction and comment is a piece of information which when combined is much more revealing about you than fingerprints.
It's not as personal as your diary, but it is the closest thing to it.
This is a bad-faith conflation of personal data with openly-shared information. It's not contradictory at all to use HN if you're disgusted by the analytics of Reddit or X.
As a European these texts are always a bit embarrassing. The evil USA that abuses our data...
No, European countries suck completely on their own. There are people in jail without due process, we have histories full of systematic abuse of children/people with disabilities in care units, blatant disregard for constitutional rights by executive forces and you have these cases like this surfacing every other week.
You don't need the evil USA to reject biometric data gathering by government. You just need to get your largest boot and point it at the arse of the next public official that is responsible for YOU. Not some imaginary enemy behind a bit of water ffs... rant off
The mistake isn't some agreement with the USA, the problem is that this data might be available in the first place. And yes, this is a case where government/EU is NOT able to safeguard it.
Other than that the text is correct and then we should just need to deal with the realities of needing visas again.
> EDRi recommends the Commission and the Council to push back against the US government’s blackmail and refuse to sell people’s personal data
There is no leverage so I fail to see how this could succeed. Especially if said officials have zero problems with this kind of surveillance. They just have to pretend that they do.
> European countries suck completely on their own. There are people in jail without due process, we have histories full of systematic abuse of children/people with disabilities in care units, blatant disregard for constitutional rights by executive forces and you have these cases like this surfacing every other week.
This is kind of besides the point though right. If you think EU nations already have serious issues why would you then also export personal data to another nation that has those same issues and worse?
There is a clear difference between a local system that has access to your data, and a foreign one. You have no way to vote the foreign entity out of power, and have no say over what they are doing with your data
We (Europeans) have a say, there are mechanisms to block the EU council, such as European courts. We also have representatives that we elect. We don’t have similar things for the US
Given the recent chat control disaster I'd say our say is rather slim when it matters. Just put a decision into urgency mode (even though technically that's only allowed for the first hearing) and let it be a default pass unless two thirds reject the proposition. If it hits the courtrooms, rewrite it a little bit and effectively keep the status quo.
I might be misinformed, but I believe that American citizens have a way of forcing specific regulation instead of only forcing it to be considered. That would be something we don't have in the EU. So in the end it might just even out in that regard.
The data in the hands of officials in your jurisdiction is far more relevant than the other way around and there is little control about the data for domestic usage.
>There is a clear difference between a local system that has access to your data, and a foreign one. You have no way to vote the foreign entity out of power, and have no say over what they are doing with your data
On the flip side foreign entities mostly won't ruin your life over petty deviance or find a way to predate upon you like local ones will because the foreign institution cannot project violence into your jurisdiction cheaply and without opposition the way the local one can. If I could choose who got access to the exclusion of the other it would be the foreign power every single time.
I know this wasn't what you were getting at but it's worth looking at the other side of the coin too seeing as voting barely grants us any power over how local entities use our data.
Yes you do. I elected my European member of parliament, and I elected my EU councillor. The elected EU councillors select the commissioner, a bureaucrat, and the elected parliament can block anything the commission puts to a vote. That’s two elected offices, and one bureaucrat that’s appointed, but can’t act without consent of the elected officer. Just like many other democracies around the world. It’s democracy, just with some responsibility delegated to bureaucrats, who can still be overridden or removed by elected representatives. What’s so hard for you to understand about that?
Exactly, and of course the EU can (and should) also reciprocate and apply the same restrictions to US travellers. There kind of visa-free agreements existed in the first place because they interest both countries involved.
No chance the world powers (US, China, France, UK, etc.) will allow something like that unless they are the one who create and enforce it. It's basically the first line of defense for homeland security: don't let terrorists into your country.
I doubt the US would ever outsource something like this (border security) to an international organization like INTERPOL. It uses INTERPOL to track down and catch wanted people abroad, but that's it.
What do you think is stopping the US? It could be privacy but I don't think that would hold up in the public court as the US is way worse than EU when it comes to privacy regulations... what else? Control?
And we're not talking about "border security" in its entirety, just the screening/identifying part.
Sure, no problem with that, use Interpol's screening tech as a tool - that's what it is. Just a repository of information that you access and then decide what to do with the result just like any other API hit
- Currently travelers to the US need to give biometric data each time they enter
- New DB connection between EU and US for this purpose
- People will _still_ need to give biometric data each time they enter in order to validate that they carry valid information
Further more, they claim that _the US_ will only request data from travelers. But, my country doesn't know if I travel and where. So the supposed privacy guarantees are empty claims.
It's not 2012 anymore. Everyone knows better, as soon as they get access to that DB, they will start working on scraping all data from it.
Am I the only person increasingly paranoid about the inevitability of having to give my fingerprints to the government? Once they're out there you can't exactly change them and in the future i'm sure imaging technology will become significantly advanced enough that a portable device could be made that identify everyone who touched a scanned surface. Maybe it's just a phobia I've had since I was super young but fingerprints feel like a really sensitive piece of biometrics to give up. I live in the US and have traveled to europe a few times but have never been fingerprinted as far as I'm aware.
On "selling out" claims. Yet again people not reading the article and trying to misrepresent who was the driving force:
> In 2022, the US government announced that it would require access to biometric databases of countries if they wish to keep visa exemption for their citizens travelling to the US
At the least the orange king does not hide his attempt to pillage as much money as possible while refusing to explain who all visited the sexy Epstein islands. I have a ... slight suspicion some billionaires not known yet have also partied with underage girls there.
»It is on this basis that EU countries would then adopt their own bilateral EBSP agreements directly with the US (or adapt their existing arrangements).«
So nobody has sold anybody out yet. The solution is to never visit the USA.
The negotiation is only necessitated by the insistence on making travel not a prerequisite for potential harm. The US requests to query information beyond the validity of documents they can prove to have been physically presented to US officers.
Borders are generally insane. But they are especially rich coming from countries, like the US or many European countries that got most of their wealth from pillaging other territories.
Walls and steel doors are bad enough but it's a good thing we're not birds, or else the world would be covered with wire mesh.
The point missing in the article is that, in order to enter the US, one needs to give the US Govt their photo and fingerprints ("biometric data") anyway.
There are two options: visa-free with the biometric data passing on the wire (no hassle), or visa (a major hassle) and biometric data passing in the airport (a minor one).
As a side note, the EU also collects photo and fingerprints from visitors now. Whereas in the US you only need to go through fingerprinting only once (or maybe "once per passport") and only on arrival, in the EU you need to go through it both on every arrival and every departure.
What's unclear to me here is this: under this new scheme does the USA get access to the biometric data of people not travelling to the USA?
From the analysis linked in TFA:
"The automated query can be based on: * Identity information included in the application or in travel documents, such as name, date of birth, national ID number, and/or * the fingerprint of an individual."
Sounds like they could send requests to that computer system just based on publicly available information on a person like name and date of birth, even if the person never applied for a visa or tried to enter the US.
Well, a national ID number isnt usually publicly available info, even if it can be obtained by the US government through illicit means.
But yeah, it does sound that way, but certainly not clear cut to me what the situation is. I.e. does the agreement involve clauses about what to do if this is abused? Do we have a way to detect if theyre using this on non-travellers? Etc.
> a national ID number isnt usually publicly available info
A couple of counterexamples:
Italy's "fiscal code" is generated with a simple algorithm which can be executed manually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fiscal_code
Sweden's "personal identity number" is public information and can be looked up by anyone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_number_(Swed...
Belgian National Number is your birth date, then an increment from 1 to 999 for every baby born that day, then a base-97 checksum.
Not sure if still the case: odd numbers for males and even numbers for females.
This also means a person’s Belgian RRN can change.
Yep, but they do not change on sex change, IIRC.
This is the leaked draft: https://statewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/wk_5183_20...
It's not clear how it is supposed to work in detail. But it sounds like it could be implemented in a way that makes illegitimate queries possible. It doesn't sound like they want to really ensure that you can catch those.
In multiple European countries, national ID numbers are public information that can be searched by name and address (i.e. Sweden)
I played with Estonia’s e-residency and they use asymmetric cryptography for everything so the ID is public but does nothing without the corresponding private key.
Only the people who travel to the US should be included in this farce and vice versa the other way…
It changes the nature of the scheme quite a bit
This all reminds me about how RealID was vital to secure us from terrorism, and it took 20 years to get it in place... with no significant terrorist actions in that timeframe.
IMHO this level of tracking ain't worth the safety gained. Seems like safety gain is just the excuse at this point.
And also according to the DHS is apparently now insufficient to prove citizenship to vote, i.e. goal posts moved.
Is your RealID different? I’ve had one for ages and am not a US citizen. I can’t see how it could be proof of citizenship if I, a non-citizen, has one.
A national ID system (standard in effectively all European countries) is table stakes for state capacity. I find the RealID opposition baffling.
In the US, we like to reduce state capacity. Helps limit the damage bad actors can do when they are in power.
Except such a federal ID already exists: the Passport Card. Make it free to obtain and mandatory to use.
This seems deeply delusional at this point.
As delusional as thinking the 2nd amendment will help "limit the damage bad actors can do when they are in power".
Not to mention that to get around RealID with flights, you just have to pay $45 and you're good to go. Since we all know that bad actors don't have access to that sort of money...
Can you expand on this? How can you board a flight without realID for $45?
Have you been to an airport yet since it became mandatory? They actually have signs around stating it. I had similar thoughts as the GP about that.
Not for roughly the last 6 months. I have been using my passport because my old drivers license doesn't expire until next year. I'll have to look closer or read the signs then. Just never noticed that.
Edit: sorry, I misunderstood the post.
I think a better way of describing it would be, someone broke into your house. The police said they'd patrol it, but it would take 20 years to set up. In those 20 years, no-one broke into your house. You might suspect they had other reasons for wanting to patrol outside your house.
The parent post is saying that the officer didn't show up for 20 years, with no burglaries in your neighborhood in between.
Unmentioned is the effect of having officers watch your home the entire time. Which is the tradeoff not worth the hassle for everyone.
> Whereas in the US you only need to go through fingerprinting only once
Once for each arrival.
Not my experience the last time I entered. I travelled with a friend for whom it was his first time visiting the US. He was fingerprinted, I wasn’t (I was fingerprinted a while ago on one of my previous trips.)
I have gotten fingerprinted every time i arrive, before i got a green card and after i got a green card. Not sure if its related to something else, country of origin or country im traveling from etc.
Ok, it could depend on the type of visa too. I only enter for tourism (B2 I think) and have never overstayed.
Never overstaying, always fingerprinted on arrival.
Your profile probably flagged some checks so they needed to get your fingerprints to actually confirm you are the one on the visa. I've never had to give fingerprints except for my first US visa.
UK, so on VISA Waiver programme not VISA.
Fingerprinted once 12 years ago, never again. Traveled on ESTA.
Same here, went in 2019, got fingerprinted, and went again in 2021 and 2025, and they didn't even care about my ESTA, they just waved me through.
The TSA agent asked me the usual questions about where I was staying, how long I was staying, I replied, and despite having printed just about everything out, he just waved me through.
The closest I got was a "random inspection" in an airport, and the TSA agents asked for our passports and to go through our luggage, but as soon as we flashed our Danish passports they lost all interest and just waved us through.
The point of taking biometics is they can check if the same person is travelling on the same passport each subsequent visit.
Sometimes they rely on just image matching, and sometimes they ask for an additional finger scan ( but not normally all fingers of all hands like first registration ).
So perhaps if you have a generic looking face, or have changed your appearance since the first visit you are more likely to be fingerprinted.
What is the point of them taking the fingerprints at all, if they don't verify them on entry?
No. I haven't had to do it in at least two years and I travel here frequently on an EU passport.
not for US citizens at least, whereas I get fingerprinted entering and exiting as an EU citizen in the EU.
That's weird. When I enter France from outside Schengen they don't fingerprint me, and I'm not even a European citizen.
Maybe not at land crossings. I just exited from Portugal and got fingerprinted on exit and entry. Granted I was using my US passport, not my EU
EU changed a lot this year (EU EES and ETIAS, long delayed), so this is probably different now than it was for some people before. It should be passport + biometric in and out, with a passport and biometric enrolled once as well, and visa-free stay duration (and other activities, like criminal stuff) logged against that record as well. Previously if you entered in one country and exited in another there wasn't really any closure of the record, so they effectively didn't care, and you could stay in EU indefinitely (and enter/exit much more while also overstaying, especially if you had multiple passports or could enter/exit from different countries).
> Granted I was using my US passport, not my EU
Then you're American as far as they're concerned. Citizenship isn't something you can tell at a glance or determine by measuring a person.
the person i'm replying to said they didn't have that experience as a non-EU citizen, whereas i did
Thats why. You don't have to go thru this extra check if you use EU passport or if you have temporary/permanent residency (but not travel visa) attached to your passport.
Also worth nothing that if you’ve verified your ID on LinkedIn or anything that uses Persona or some other flavour of Palantir - the US already has all this data and much more.
>EU also collects photo and fingerprints from visitors now on every arrival and departure.
This world is very depressing. I think this may be my last year on the planet.
I hate all this biometric scanning on all sides. As an American it makes me not want to visit the EU to avoid being scanned, and I'd understand the other way too if an EU member was visiting the us.
In the US there have been notorious mistakes of using biometrics to falsely recognize an unknown criminal. Does this happen in the EU too?
It's probably too late but we should try to get rid of this.
> In the US there have been notorious mistakes of using biometrics to falsely recognize an unknown criminal. Does this happen in the EU too?
This my major concern with biometrics and DNA databases. It makes the cops lazy. "Subjects fingerprints and DNA was found on the crime scene, so he's clearly the murderer". That flips the evidence around, suddenly "I" have to prove I'm innocent as opposed to the law proving I'm guilty.
If you can simply collect all DNA and fingerprints from a crime scene, look it up in a database and compile a list of suspects, it also eliminates the possibility that the real perpetrator didn't leave DNA or fingerprints.
Sure, DNA has its use, like "here's the murder weapon, and it has the suspects DNA and fingerprints on it". It's not a guarantee, but it's a closer match.
As for "does that happen in Europe as well", unfortunately yes. There have been cases where the police have found fingerprints and DNA and announced they had the suspect they were looking for, only for said person to be cleared weeks or months later.
As a general rule, DNA and fingerprints cannot be the sole evidence in EU courts. The law will need find more evidence before they can convict you. Also, no death penalty, and "lifetime" in the EU is usually around 10 years, so not a lot of people are found innocent after 30 years.
I suspect that false imprisonment/recognition cases are lessened with biometrics, not increased. I absolutely believe you can point me to individual cases though.
Your DNA and fingerprints are literally everywhere you go, and they don't decay as soon as you leave. Hell, even passing close by a person can transfer your DNA to their clothes.
If the cops have a DNA Database, they "just" need to collect all DNA from a crime scene to compile a list of suspects, and by doing so, they're flipping the question of guilt around, you're no longer innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven innocent. You now have to prove you didn't "do it".
How could random prints be falsely linked to me if my prints are not in a database? It can only happen if they are.
You can be falsely linked to a crime without biometric evidence and excluded on the basis of biometric evidence
That can also be trivially done without a biometrics database: just collect and compare when they become a suspect!
No, if you don’t change your passport you only have to scan your fingerprints once in the EU.
If you have a recent EU passport (like 6-8 years), biometrics like fingerprints are already in the chip, and you won't need to be fingerprinted upon arrival or departure, at least in theory, I wouldn't be surprised if some bureaucrat decided that the passport data can't be trusted and we'll fingerprint everybody anyway.
I have just returned from the EU last week and I have been fingerprinted twice — once on entry and once on exit.
The US passport holders get fingerprinted on entry only, as I’ve heard.
Ok, weird, I don’t know how the system works then. My wife is Colombian and on her last entry she just scanned her passport and that was it.
If you're an EU citizen, it could be that your wife has an EU residence permit. The rules for EU residents are different.
i just traveled to the EU last week and you're wrong, got fingerprinted on entrance and exit
So let the people who want to go to the US do that and don't send data from the vast majority of people who will never visit the US there. It's claimed that only data of traveler's will be retrieved by the US but it's not 2012 anymore, we all know better.
> visa (a major hassle) and biometric data passing in the airport (a minor one).
Since US-issued visas are multiple entry for 10yrs, it's relatively not a hassle at all.
Both the USA and the EU are doing Evil here. However had, this is not solely confind to biometric data only - this is about selling data to outside agencies, so the EU betrays EU citizens here.
You don’t get fingerprints collected on departure, just on arrival. Unless you go through automated gates maybe?
Not my experience: I’ve been fingerprinted on both the arrival and the departure. There was no automatic gate on the departure, just an officer.
US passport holders only get fingerprinted on the arrival, as I’ve heard.
wrong
If the US gets the data anyway, why the need for access?
It's to validate that the fingerprints of the person arriving are the same as the fingerprints of the person who got the passport.
Which you don't need to do, because the fingerprints are in the passport (cryptographically secure so only an authorized reader can access them, and only when able to OCR the inside of the passport). They're signed by your issuing government, so they're much harder to forge than the physical document.
The fingerprints in the passport can't do that?
Most countries' passports don't include fingerprint data. The US passport application process is entirely digital/by mail, for example, with no fingerprinting at all.
EU passports do.
Not those issued in Denmark or Ireland, apparently [1], though I see other sources saying Denmark does fingerprint now. Most countries don't fingerprint children.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passports_of_the_European_Unio...
Seems like Ireland only currently (looking at the Danish Minstry of Foreign Affairs on passports). And, yes, age threshold for kids.
new ones yes but mine is still valid for the next 2.5 years and doesn't.
When passports are valid for 10 years there is always a bit of inertia.
How do they manage that? Do you have to visit a government office to get a passport? I only have a UK passport and it definitely does not include my finger prints as it was obtained by post.
Yes.
In fact, you have to do it twice; once to apply and once to receive it.
In Poland at least, the queues are often a few weeks long, and you have to book online in advance. If it's summer season and you need to travel soon, you usually have to go to some office in Buttfuckville at the other end of the country to get a reasonable date. Passport office hunting is an established practice for people who need one ASAP.
If you're a kid, both of your parents need to be present with you at the appointment at the same time, so they have to coordinate time off work. The fun begins if they're divorced and one lives in a different country.
At least, unlike in the UK/US, the process itself is pretty painless. I got mine just after I turned 18 (see above), and all I really needed to do was to go there, bring my ID, fill a single form and give them the fingerprints.
The process in the US is you open an online form, type in your details, and upload a JPEG of your face! Then you receive a passport in the mail a few weeks later! I would say that is a lot less painful than the Polish process.
The average US border official is a (angry) moron (with a badge and a gun). They've literally fingerprinted me on entry with a US passport because they were too stupid to figure out US citizens don't have to do that. I have been interrogated by CBP to ask if I "work in the country" despite being a citizen. Anything that changes the process from the simplest one-size-fits all will be fucked up, they cannot differentiate the process between foreigner and citizen let alone EU vs some other place.
Edit: Every time I share my border stories I get accused of lying or having done something wrong. I have much much crazier ones. No one believes it until it happens to them. Count yourself lucky if you've never been strip searched or imprisoned by these psychopaths, any belief they are reasonable are formed because you were lucky and have a naïve sort of optimism that if you do everything right it won't happen to you.
The average US border official is just like the average official(and non-official) anywhere; mostly bored, waiting for their workday to be over so they can go home and do the things that they actually enjoy.
Not to say they don't make mistakes or don't fully read/understand their systems. A co-worker was former LEO, had his id stolen at that time. We were traveling back from an a vendor site across the border, the border agent misunderstood the system alert from "double check this guys docs to make sure he is who he says he is" to "Anyone using this id is traveling under a false name!" So he got held and questioned, called his former supervisor, CPB supervisor came and showed him how to get a travel redress number.
Amusingly, since we were traveling together, I got his luggage off the carousel and kept it with me as I watched them question him. After some time they decided to look at his bags and came looking for them, I told them I had them and he was with me. They took the bags and didn't even want to speak with me.
>The average US border official is just like the average official(and non-official) anywhere;
False. CBP is well known as bottom rung in terms of hiring of federal LEO and an employer of last resorts. For example, one of the most prestigious is the Marshals Service, and for instance HSI is typically far closer to "average" or above than CBP is. If you're dealing with something like a DEA or FBI agent that is roughly 'average' and CBP you are roughly dealing with the 'moron' end and roughly the professional and intelligence opposite of the Marshals.
> because they were too stupid to figure out US citizens don't have to do that
This seems extremely unlikely to me. Did you stand in the noncitizens line by mistake?
It's called racial profiling.
U.S. border agents really are just worse. Much worse. (I can't say what racial profiling adds to that, I can only speak to my own experiences).
I've been routinely grilled and extensively searched many times just crossing between the U.S. and Canada - the most hilarious instance being when I was crossing from Yukon Territory back to Alaska some 10 years ago.
In Latin America, things are considerably more professional, and the government officials don't act like they hate you and just want you to go away. Europe's fine too.
From what I've heard, Canada is actually a lot worse than the US.
I was traveling as part of a party of five (different travel dates, separate ETA filings, no apparent connection). One of us didn't get an ETA. Another got one just before the trip (and it was a 13-year-old child). The rest of us got ours immediately, but I was questioned at the border for 10+ minutes with no apparent reason, and then allowed in without a comment.
From what I heard anecdotally, Canadian officers are trained to “interrogate” everyone believing the added duress will cause people to slip up and reveal they are really a terrorist or some such.
I'm a US citizen, living in the EU and have global entry, etc... I've been to Canada once on business and they asked more questions than I've ever had asked on all my frequent travels back and forth EU-US.
> In Latin America, things are considerably more professional, and the government officials don't act like they hate you and just want you to go away.
Depends. Someone I know had a terrible experience crossing into Belize on a land border. Was held there for two hours while they "verified" something. Seemed like a power-tripping agent.
Maybe (hamfistedly) angling for a bribe to ‘expedite’?
I would characterize Belize as part of the Anglosphere instead of Latin America. Last colonized by Britain as their last European influence on governance and only English as the official language. The anglosphere has the nastiest border controls in my experience.
US citizens aren't fingerprinted on entry, regardless of race(!). They don't even have the fingerprint machines in the citizen line at any airport I've ever gone through, which is why I suspect GP went to the wrong place.
SFO has fingerprint machines in all lines, including the citizen lines. And in the Global Entry lines, even.
I agree with you that US citizens aren't supposed to be fingerprinted on entry, but I am absolutely unsurprised that it happens sometimes.
Every port of entry I’ve been in, they have the same setup at every booth, which definitely includes the fingerprint machines. Even Texas, though I just got waved through due to the creepy gait/face recognition thing without stopping.
Yay for our AI overlords or something?
https://content.imageresizer.com/images/memes/Family-Guy-Ski...
I’m a minority who, despite visually fitting the stereotype of a plane hijacker, have found our passport control people to be nothing but professional and courteous. The overall system seems to be pretty efficient about moving people through, despite the airports I’m going through being out of date and not set up for the volumes of traffic they get.
This is a marked contrast to the rest of our immigration, border patrol, and airline security people who are lazy and needlessly aggro as a rule.
But if you asked me to trade the passport check experience of entering the US with the experiences I’ve had trying to get into France or Germany I’d pick the US hands down. Especially Frankfurt. WTF are they doing over there?
The issue with stories like yours is that they don't really tell us anything. The incidence of racial profiling is low enough that some people, such as yourself, will never have a problem, ever. But that doesn't mean there aren't problems, and that they don't crop up often enough to be something we should be really uncomfortable with letting happen.
In my experience, the airports could handle the passenger volume, but they lack the people. I've entered the US 25–30 times, and almost every time, there have been long lines and empty immigration counters.
There's no fingerprints in the passport.
Edit apparently some but not all EU passports do, which is weird.
Which EU passports don't (other than below some age, lack of fingers etc.)? For a while some older ones might not have, but not sure if the expiry would still be long enough?
Edit: seems like Ireland is the odd one out (Danemark could, but seems to fingerprint).
Some countries in the EU only issue biometric passports only. And they have your fingerprints in them.
Others I imagine issue both types of passports and that's why some people are fingerprinted more often.
I would imagine it to match that the biometrics on file with the biometrics presented at the border to catch forgeries?
Also think espionage/intelligence - those passports won't be forgeries (as they will gov issued), but there will be people travelling around the world with multiple "identities" shall we say, and this is going to make all that much harder.
Is there a high incidence of forgeries?
Probably not high, but forgeries are the people of most concern. Most people are honest travelers (either on business or vacation), and will go back home. Most people only commit crimes of the type "I didn't know this thing was illegal here: it is legal and common back home" - and the agent who catches it responds "I find a bunch of you every day who didn't know that - just put it in the destroy bucket and have fun" (technically they can arrest you for trying to bring something illegal in, but they know this is an honest mistake that isn't worth doing anything more about)
The forgeries are rare, but they are also the people customs cares most about. Those people who are planning to commit a serious crime of some sort.
It's not forgery so much as people using the same passport. People look similar.
Then fingerprints in passport and person shouldn't match, no?
To reduce friction of traveling to the US obviously.
No more waiting in a long immigration queue?
I assume you would have to wait anyway but the processing of your person would be faster.
With that, I much prefer US immigration queues than EU immigration queues — as of 2026, my US times are much faster than my EU times.
It probably matters where, because the longest waiting times were always in the US for me. Especially since digital passports, the queue into the EU is always extremely quick with those, while it’s still the same into the US (at least in Boston and Los Angeles, where I usually land).
I've always wanted to wait in an ICE concentration camp instead
> in the EU you need to go through it both on every arrival and every departure.
You absolutely don't. If you've done it once on your passport/ID you don't need to do it again. And infact there are fast track autonomous lanes that you can just scan your EU passport with biometric chip and fly through. (In theory, there's always idiots who don't realise they don't have it)
People without EU citizenship also enter EU.
Recent changes to EES system have been a disaster, and as op has pointed out, people do have to scan their biometrics more than once coming from a non-EU country. In some cases even if you are a EU resident in case the airport has no specific queues.
> Recent changes to EES system have been a disaster
How ?
> People do have to scan their biometrics more than once coming from a non-EU country.
If the data hasn't had time to propagate then it's just a flag that you need to do it.
> In some cases even if you are a EU resident in case the airport has no specific queues.
Yes, if I arrive in Firenze airport there is maybe 2 people working on the border, if I'm in the Schengen, I don't even need to be checked. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
> People without EU citizenship also enter EU.
Clearly I'm not talking about these cases. You're not from the EU, you need to follow the rules. Sorry.
I just visited Italy. We absolutely passed through biometric scans on arrival and departure from FCO (US passports, vacation so no paper visa).
And then again at DUB outbound (US pre-clearance, so the normal Global Entry kiosk).
All of this was expected. The only thing that surprise me was there was no passport check or any other custom/immigration at Dublin on the inbound leg. We just walked from the arrival gate to the departure gate and that was that.
> And then again at DUB outbound (US pre-clearance, so the normal Global Entry kiosk).
Pre clearance from the US means nothing for Ireland, it's also not Schengen.
> The only thing that surprise me was there was no passport check or any other custom/immigration at Dublin on the inbound leg.
Because you've done it on your outbound. Ireland is also a bit more relaxed, but at the same time they can randomely ask you for your papers.
> from the arrival gate to the departure gate
If you don't pass the control, if I'm not wrong you'll never need to be rechecked. The only place it has happened to me within EU was between Ireland -> Germany -> Greece. Probably because Ireland isn't Schengen
Ireland is not in Schengen, so you were doing an international-to-international transfer. You normally don't have to go through immigration and customs for those, unless there are specific legal requirements or the airport is poorly organized.
Sure, but we went down the same hallway as everybody who was stopping in Ireland. There was just a sign at passport check with an arrow that said go on by. If I had wanted to stay in Ireland, I could’ve just walked out of the airport.
Dublin is amazingly chill with passport/visa/immigration.
I once needed an actual stamp in my passport, and the agent literally apologized to me for taking up the space. I thought she might be messing with me, but not, entirely serious.
With the introduction of EES system (whose implementation was completed only a few months ago), the full data of non-EU citizens gets collected the first time we enter the EU and then we have to verify it every subsequent time.
Not much of a hassle at airports due to the availability of self-service kiosks, somewhat of a hassle when crossing with a car, and infuriatingly annoying when using a mass transit option like a bus or a train where everyone has to step outside and wait in line to do that, adding about 20-30 minutes to the border crossing.
We used the EES system in Italy, I think (cattle gates with passport scan and photo). The line was still pretty long and slow. Mostly because people couldn’t figure out how to get their passport scanned properly or they weren’t looking at the camera or any number of other things that there were signs explaining what to do and people just couldn’t be bothered doing it correctly
I wish it was 20-30 minutes. Try 2-3 hours.
Definitely depends on the ratio of first time visitors since the introduction of the EES system (whose data needs collecting) vs returning visitors (whose data only needs verifying). I was going by my last experience, but I waited way longer than an hour in the past.
> in the US you only need to go through fingerprinting only once (or maybe "once per passport")
I’ve entered the US something like 150 times over 20 years. Visa free (ESTA) and on a B1 tourist visa.
I’ve been fingerprinted and photographed every single time.
As has been discussed elsewhere, this sounds more like you are flagged than SOP.
Never had a problem, never any hint or talk that anything is amiss. Always extremely routine.
> never any hint or talk that anything is amiss
there never is
With the major distinction being that a lot of Europeans have absolutely no intention of ever visiting the United States, a country with a history of sometimes more, sometimes less hostility and aggressive intelligence agencies.
If you want to visit a hellhole, go through the hassle. But don't hand out all of our data just because you want to do joyrides.
Can't see where "the major distinction" lies. It's also true that a lot of US citizens have absolutely no intention of ever visiting Europe -- as to hostilities, well the last two World Wars didn't exactly start in the US.
>As a side note, the EU also collects photo and fingerprints from visitors now.
Does this also apply if you arrive by dinghy?
We must close this dinghy gap!
Flew into CDG two days ago. US citizens. Passport control did not take fingerprints from any of us.
I’m just annoyed at all the visa-free claims while they charge you and you need a pre-approval anyway.
> one needs to give the US Govt their photo and fingerprints ("biometric data") anyway.
Standard practice everywhere in Asia.
You missed the third option: don't go to the US.
You missed a fourth option: renounce your European citizenship
... or to EU, or to UK, or to anywhere at all. Just stay at home.
Obligatory reference to "Remain Indoors" sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnd1jKcfBRE
What if home is one of those places? :panic:
There's a third option - Not going to the US. It is my preferred option.
Virtue signal received.
Does the EU really collect that, or only sometimes? I know the EU reserves the right to collect all that, but do they in practice?
I haven't been to the EU in a decade, but last time I was there I was standing in the customs line for non-EU residents and someone official saw my US passport in hand and directed me to the much shorter/faster EU citizens line. I walked right through customs without being checked at all.
The last few trip I've taken through Europe this year have changed to the new fingerprinting system.
Its changed in the last year or so. Officially it started in October 2025, it's been a bit of a disaster in terms of implementation. It's called the Entry/Exit System (EES)
I've had my fingerprints taken every time I've been to the US, although not always all the fingers every time, presumably on subsequent visits if you have passport + right hand matches, they don't bother scanning left hand or thumbs.
I've certainly had the full scan on multiple occasions though.
Also good to know that EES is implemented by the private company Thales.
Yes they have biometric collection stations now.
10 years ago I walked right past the French immigration officer by accident because I didn't know where I was going. He yelled at me to get back in line, quickly stamped my passport and then shooed my along. EU has become a lot more like the US. I'd probably been detained if I had done that in the US. Last year visiting Switzerland they had these machines that auto adjust a camera to your height and there was no way you were going past the barriers by accident so you are getting your photo taken.
Things have changed in the last 10 years. I recalled from 2016, while some countries like Sweden were super strict about entry/departure (lady manually counted number of days on passport) others had been so lax it was comical: France would take one quick glance at you and stamp the passport, Ireland would at least test if you could answer a simple question with the stamp already pre positioned on the passport upon answering said question.
I presume this electronic system finally accounts for all of these differences and provides a minimum standard for exit/entry. Now it being digitized there is no wiggle room on exit/entry. Frankly with how lousy US exit/entry seems for foreigners, I don't mind the EU wanting to maintain strict standards for visitors to their borders as well. I wouldn't even mind them being extra rough on us Americans. Its totally understandable. Preferably take all the US diplomat passports to a back room as well while they are at it.
About the same time ago I walked out of the airport in Tel Aviv and a military guy with an assault rifle asked to see my passport. This was after having gone through passport and customs checks inside of course. :)
> Now it being digitized there is no wiggle room on exit/entry.
Yes. Because the primary issue is it was too easy to fly under the radar once you were in the Schengen zone.
Also in 2026 there are security threats which means tighter borders is a necessity.
Clearly in 2026, the easiest way to achieve compliance at all Schengen borders accross 29 countries is to digitise it, including biometrics.
Yes, to put it politely, there have been "teething issues" in its implementation. But given the sheer scale of the change, that is only to be expected. I think any of us working in tech would agree that it would be delusional to think such a thing would be perfect from day zero.
Well just to clarify as I am not sure if you understood what I am saying but when I said wiggle room I was referring to the different standards of enforcement applied by different countries. This is why I gave personal anecdotes. Im sure all EU countries have days where enforcement is strict and other days where enforcement is more lax. The problems implementing the digital system are a problem but it is a separate issue from the intended design goals of the system. Namely now you have a minimum layer of immigration enforcement across the union given that it is a unified digitized system. It is still more fair and straightforward than the US system and I commend them for setting a minimum standard that I hope others can aspire to. I am unsure about the privacy implications. It is a tough subject to think about. It was nice not having to have any stress going through immigration a year ago. But that is my bias as a young person feeling anxious of first traveling to Europe and being excited for seeing the countries and meeting the unique people for the first time.
The EU is very sporadic. I walked straight into Sweden from a flight from Iraq and customs was not even there, and passport control waved everyone through with the most cursory of glances.
I'm not sure the customs official knows where you came from (unless they explicitly ask, of course), because in my experience normally you get off the airplane and join a common queue. I think your passport counts a lot more when it comes to how strict the scrutiny is going to be. I'm assuming you're American, if you had an Iraqi passport, maybe you would have to answer a few more questions.
Not the EU, but I once accidentally entered Switzerland in the Zürich airport. The passport counter was unmanned and the doorway next to it was open, so I assumed there is another checkpoint somewhere further.
When a guy started chasing after me 30 seconds later I realized my assumption was wrong. But there really wasn't a way to know.
Unless it has changed recently Germany has no general database of biometric data. Of course law enforcement has for the cases they work on, but for the average passport holder the data gets destroyed once the passport has been accepted by the citizen. So it remains only decentralized in passport chips.
It's probably an exception in EU.
It's not clear to me if this would allow access to all biometric data, or "just" to that of people crossing the US border?
And for the latter, what data are we talking about? If it's mostly fingerprints, don't those already get collected upon crossing the border? And can't they already be read from a passport's chip?
I guess the US can freely request data on any citizen. The home countries don't know if you are actually traveling into the US. Direct flights are not the only option to reach the US.
It's just for people crossing the border, and yeah it's mostly fingerprints. The point is mainly to detect fraudulent passports, and the rest of the data is self explanatory (the US obviously is interested in people visiting that EU agencies have flagged for being potential terrorists).
do they actually say that they can only do a lookup when checking a visa, or are we giving api access to the US government and saying "Dont do evil" >
If you expect that level of incompetence from your elected officials than maybe the problem isn't the US.
Your comment presupposes that there can be only one problem; I don't think that's a valid assumption.
If it lets the US use that identity to query European databases and retrieve associated information, that is a much larger change
Supposedly it will be only requested for people crossing into the US. But it's not 2012 anymore and we all know better.
This is a good thing for travellers.
In border security there are generally two camps, one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks, and generally makes travelling easy for the average person, and the other is like traditional cops using traditional tactics… the kind that will miss the person smuggling a kilogram of cocaine in their suitcase but will go after the old man who didn’t declare a pair of socks he bought on a trip. They generally make travel awful.
Support the intelligence-driven side of border security and reject the traditional cop camp.
The same can be said about Flock, or other surveillance state mechanisms.
It's good for security, it's more convenient than police doing police work.
Until it's not. Until it's hacked or abused as powerful mechanisms commonly are.
There's some level of difference to be fair
Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.
In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:
1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)
2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data
Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces
Some amount of surveillance leads to a better society. See SG. Flock is needed for current USA. That's why idiots are up against it.
Flock is run by incompetants. Their systems are comically insecure and access is easily abused. And the amount of surveillance data they routinely collect is not small. There needed to be a lot more discuss of who is doing the surveillance, how, and why before this was foisted on the public.
Then that should be fixed instead of vandalizing.
And let's be honest, that's not why "some" people are against them.
I want to agree with this. My fear is that governments and corporations love using technology to launder evil shit. Once security is automated, entire groups of people can be quickly and effortlessly disenfranchised by flipping a bool on a server somewhere. No appeal, no recourse, no human faces. You get to find out from some LLM that you aren't allowed in the country anymore because the "algorithm" identitifed you as a risk. uwu so sawd
It only works if the "intellence-driven security" is being developed in good faith.
That already happens. Witness all the random "bans" and "pauses" Trump has instituted against various nationalities and groups of people at the border.
> one that uses data and intelligence to go after the worst, large-scale criminal operations and networks
History shows that the main question with government and data collection is not "what X makes life easier for citizens" but "who collects/uses X and for what purpose". In the happy case, this may be all well and peachy. The case people rightfully worry about is not that case.
> In border security there are generally two camps
Well, there is a third camp. Israeli-style bio-social profiling of 100% of travelers.
That really makes travel awful !
Tbf Israel has more concern than travelers' comfort, given everything happening around them AND maybe within them too.
Those auto-turrets wont discriminate by themselves
Hey that’s not what “intelligence” means. What you’re arguing for is data-driven automation, taking the human out of the loop. You’re describing “computer says no” level border control, with Google-level human support (ie none) and somehow spinning that as better than real human cops doing what they do best.
Maybe this resonates in the American case where cops are notoriously undertrained and over-violent, but I gotta say it sounds extremely dystopian to me. All-power computerized control isn’t “intelligence”.
It’s also a false dichotomy. You can have lots of automation with humans in the loop. Humans can use automation to be faster and this is common.
I fail to understand the distinction between an ESTA and a visa to be honest. You need to do the paperwork in advance, pay, provide all sort of personal information, and it can be denied, and if approved only for a limited amount of time. Given that both the EU and the UK have reciprocated, it is a fiction that there exists some visa free travel between these 3 zones. And the more hassle you create, the less tourism you will get.
They're identical but countries pretend they're different. I got an evisa when I went to Indonesia and India. For each country, the process involved uploading a picture, filling in some basic details, and paying a fee. I was approved in 30 seconds for each. I'm pretty sure it was automatic.
ESTA is supposed to be a lower hurdle than a visa. But from what I've heard, approvals take longer and quite a few people get rejected.
Countries like to pretend they're still visa free, but honestly, it's just a pain in the ass and I'd rather they call it a visa. It's very, very easy to book a plane to a country, see all info indicating its visa free and you can just go, then right as you're about to head out, you decide to check for the 50th time just to be sure... and it turns out there's some "visa free process" for your country called EDtdjvubHHVJVF or some other random assortment of letters that involves a 2 hour application process and 24-72 hours (business days only) for approval results to come in. A visa would be preferable because it's more transparent.
You don't need to visit an embassy for ESTA, for a Visa this in-person interview at the embassy is required.
ESTAs used to be instant for me, but last time I got one (2023) it took 2 days
The US is particularly bad as you need an ESTA to transit. I had a friend nearly caught out by that on a flight from London to Lima which involved changing in Miami. When changing plane from an international to international flight in most countries you get off a plane, maybe go through security, and then get on another plane. In the US this isn't a thing. You have to immigrate into the country for 20 minutes.
The same rules in Canada and Mexico.
And the UK I think.
No, you land at Heathrow you don't go pass passport control if you change onto another international flight. You go through security and then into the departure lounge.
Obviously if you land at Heathrow and fly out of Manchester then sure you have to immigrate, but not at the same airport.
Same at Dubai and Qatar, Helsinki and Frankfurt, Singapore. and Seoul.
Indeed last time I transited Seoul I stayed in a hotel airside for 12 hours before my next flight.
> land at Heathrow you don't go pass passport control if you change onto another international flight. You go through security and then into the departure lounge.
This requires a Direct Airside Transit visa, unless you are a citizen of one of the exempt countries or have a visa/residence permit from certain countries (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Schengen). Applying for this visa involves going to the local visa processing centre, so it is not an online or on-arrival process, and takes around 3 weeks.
https://www.gov.uk/transit-visa/direct-airside-transit-visa
It's to get around bilateral arrangements where counties have mutually agreed to not require visas (IE visa-on-arrival).
This allows doing visa type checks but not technically violating the agreement as it's not called a visa.
I spent around 20 minutes arguing with ChatGPT when I asked the question and we eventually came to this conclusion... It's a visa that's not a visa.
ESTA and visas are two different things:
- with ESTA, your country of origin is "trusted" and individuals in general undergo a lower level of scrutiny at a US port of entry.
- with a VISA, you country of origin is "not trusted" and individuals are granted the right to travel to the US after they undergo interviews at an US embassy and get approved.
Neither is a right to enter the US. Just a right to be transported by air/ship to a US port of entry. If the CBP lets you in it is a different story.
This is the US version. Other countries have their own rules.
And only one gives you a sticker on your passport
(And funnily enough the Visa lasts for a longer time)
Depends on the country. Eg. New Zealand and Australia don't put a visa sticker in your passport.
If you try actually filling out DS-160 and going through the rest of the process the difference will become really clear.
Yeah is a far cry from other countries where you can just show up and maybe fill out an A5 form on arrival.
The distinction still matters legally and administratively
The amount of data you need to provide for ESTA and a B1/B2 US Visa is not remotely comparable - the visa process has way more steps and requirements.
But then some countries have visas on arrival that are less of a hassle than ESTA.
That's about to change, they are about to introduce a change that will require bios of all relatives, all social media accounts, email addresses, etc. Haven't looked at a US visa recently but it seems as invasive.
Depends on the visa.
A-1 and A-2 for example require almost nothing beyond a photograph, and a letter saying you’re travelling on behalf of your government.
So it's a "lightweight" visa.
The information you need to provide as an Iranian after a P1 visa is not remotely comparable to a British citizen after a B1 visa either.
"you" being the operative word. The rest of the information will just be supplied by your government instead of yourself.
To apply for a visa, even a B1 visa, you have to go to a consulate and show them proof of your bank account, property you own, family details, your job and such things (supposedly to show that you are tied to your home company and not secretly trying to immigrate to the US).
Governments don't even have all this information about their own citizens reliably even if they wanted to hand it over.
All it means that you do not have to go to the embassy and stand in line
I've never had to do this for a visa for countries that required one. It was all online.
For US visa you absolutely have to.
For any US visa you do, and you can't take electronic items or bags with you. Costs a lot more too.
A reason I refused to go to Syria a couple of years ago. A colleague who did go said "oh I have a US (i) visa so I'm fine". I asked "how about in 20 years time when you've left a company which will pay for you to have a US visa. He hadn't considered that.
A friend of mine went to Libya on behalf of the US military about a decade ago. He is no longer eligible for a US esta and thus has to get a visa if he goes on holiday.
Last time I went to India I had to get a real visa which involved travelling to an office in London and waiting around for a couple of hours.
It's quite normal for people of "lesser powered" countries who don't have the power of passport that the US and Western European citizens do. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you would have to fly for hours to a major Russian city a couple of weeks in advance to apply for a visa to visit the UK.
When I went to Pakistan in 2010 it was even worse. Well until I gave up and then used a visa agency which just handled it all for me.
Last time I tried to go to India I went for an electronic visa, and after 7 days of "waiting" they updated it to say "declined". No explanation.
A visa allows you entry, an ESTA doesn't allow you entry but just says you're allowed to travel to the border to see if you'll be allowed entry or not.
It's more for the airline than for you. If you have an ESTA and get refused entry, the airline isn't fined for bringing someone unauthorized to the border.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-...
It states regarding a visa: "A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port-of-entry (generally an airport) and request permission to enter the United States. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at the port-of-entry have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States. "
> A visa allows you entry
That's incorrect, holding a B1/B2 US visa only allows you to arrive at the port of entry, the actual permission to enter the country is always left to the border officer interviewing you
It is legal to show up at a port of entry without any sort of anything. If all it allows you to do is show up at the port of entry it's a worthless scrap of paper.
If you show up at a US port of entry without any sort of anything the default decision is to deny entry (exceptions for Canadian citizens and citizens of a few small islands). If you show up at a US port of entry with an ESTA/visa you will most likely be allowed entry. Refusals are relatively rare.
Commercial carriers such as airlines are also not allowed to transport people who need ESTAs/visas and do not have them to the US, so in practice it's relatively difficult to even get to the port of entry without a visa.
Not for airlines and international cruise ships with US as destination. The attendants won't let you board unless you have a valid US visas. Carriers get fined if they transport individuals with no proper documents to a US port of entry.
Airlines are fined for inadmissible passengers. Whether they have a visa or not. If they have no visa but are admitted there is no such fine.
The visa is immaterial to the fine unless it conveys something beyond merely allowing you to present at a port of entry, which is allowed to basically everyone.
In practice if you have the VISA they will almost always admit you. If you are rejected it generally means they find something at the border.
> A visa allows you entry
Nope
It's the same deal as you mention above
It shouldn't be possible for the US to request this data without the passport being physically present at a US entry facility (border, airport checkin scan, consulate) where fingerprints/photos are actually compared.
Before that point, only passport information tuples should be queryable, i.e., "Is {passport number, name, dob, pob, issue date, expiry} valid?".
We should remember that the current (and likely future) administration is actively hostile to transgender and intersex people, and persecutes US citizens with changed gender identifiers. Discrimination based on ethnicity is only one Overton-lurch away.
What a stupid, hysterical claim. This "sensitive data" is just what's on your passport, fingerprints, criminal history, and terrorism flags (from European agencies), only for people crossing the border. I don't see how you could defend not sharing any of that.
...uhm You are happy to share your home address and everything else to securely identify you to a government acting increasingly erratic? Because I am not. I would be happy if terrorism-flagged people are shared across borders, but not everyone.
Remember once the dataset is there, it is not ever going to go away, regardless of who is in power
If you don't want the US to have your date of birth, photo, fingerprints, etc then don't go to the US. It's that easy.
Also don't have a Facebook account, don't shop with Amazon, don't use an Android or Apple phone, don't work for a company that uses Office365. Sounds real easy doesn't it?
Most of those don't require fingerprints or photos. Those that require addresses, do so because they're literally billing and/or shipping items to you. And none of them is comparable to physically entering another country.
I, a US citizen, got fingerprinted by passport control in Austria 2 weeks ago, and they took a picture of my face and asked for personal details. That's pretty much how passport control works universally in any developed country, only the "how they get the information" changes. Sometimes they already have it and sometimes they ask for it.
Bah. Stop fearmongering. All of your lists are choices. You could chose not to. But you don't because it's convenient.
Amazon shopping doesn't need a photo or fingerprints or date of birth.
You share your thoughts, ideas, likes and dislikes on American sites like this one. Possibly also have a YouTube account you've actively used daily for years. You don't seem to have a problem with that, why? I would argue the totality of your activity on American sites would be much more revealing about you than your fingerprints and home address.
Your home address is required for a US visa and for many other countries visas around the world. This is not a recent thing.
Was Global Entry in the US a tactic to trick us into giving up our biometric data for speedy re-entry? I can say it's now barely faster than waiting behind the line for the stamper officials in their booths.
This is exactly what the EU does for foreigners entering
It would be the same if US also shared US nationals fingerprints with EU.
Instead, the EU is going to collect the US nationals' fingerprints at the EU points of entry.
That's what US has been doing for over a decade if not two. Irrelevant point.
I do not agree and do not consent to give away my biometric data. With which authority is this happening? Some are about to loose their job.
Sell it ? That's a change. They give it for free.
As an aside, I always find it amusing that as a British person that have visited both the US and the Schengen area since the new entry/exit system. Both the US and EU have taken my biometric information (i.e fingerprints) but the UK government has not.
My UK passport from 8 years ago has biometric info.
What a surprise, I heard nobody wants to travel to the US anyways. EU leaders seem to be making concessions for pretty much nothing. USA first needs to make the country desirable to visit before discussing ways to make it easier to come into the country -__-
This is not something I have a real issue with. Most of my privacy concerns are with my own government (the USA, Flock, various TLAs have unfettered communications access in violation of the 4th amendment, etc). I think the exchange of information should be mutual though. I don't care if they want to check me out before I enter their country, seems like a basic step. However, that info should not be shared until one gets a ticket/visa to said foreign country.
Under the assumption that this framework is somewhat sane and only shares biometric data of those people who actually request an ESTA, I don't see the issue.
This data already leaks whenever you travel legally to the US, because they take it from you as a requirement of entry. All this does is let them check the data they take on entry against the provided data. Which seems fair. The fact this data is already in passports is a very different matter, but that is something the EU has done voluntarily.
> those people who actually request an ESTA
I order to know who actually requested it, information needs to be shared that previously was not. (I can think of technical schemes to limit this to less scary recipients and data, but however you do it, some necessary side-effect remains: Citizens of the EU who do not make such request cannot remain entirely unaffected.)
The future is bleak.
The future is bleak if you are attempting to cross borders with a forged or stolen passport. Nobody else is adversely affected by this.
There are many reasons not to want authoritarian governments tracking your every movement other than you having stolen or forged a passport.
you might not want to look into what governments do with your phones triangulation data :D
The U.S. accessing my personal data causes immediate harm and completely unacceptable risk.
and yet you use american sites and services like this one, where you freely give even more personal data than fingerprints like your interests, thoughts, and more!
I see comments like this all over hackernews but the truth is you actually don't care. You have a choice to not use HN/Reddit/YouTube/whatever but here you are.
The value was always in the connection not any individual datum.
Besides, I choose what information I link to this identity do I not? You're welcome to my views and their connection to each other. Doesn't mean I want you to know everything else.
What is more personal than the contents of your mind? Each interaction and comment is a piece of information which when combined is much more revealing about you than fingerprints.
It's not as personal as your diary, but it is the closest thing to it.
This is a bad-faith conflation of personal data with openly-shared information. It's not contradictory at all to use HN if you're disgusted by the analytics of Reddit or X.
That's a failure of imagination on your part. I don't agree that governments should have this kind of information about us in order to cross borders.
You really put a lot of trust in countries that are rules by oligarchs and where a far-right is rising to power...
Last time I purchased a new passport my fingerprints got scanned and sent to a French private company. Not sure if this is worse or not.
As a European these texts are always a bit embarrassing. The evil USA that abuses our data...
No, European countries suck completely on their own. There are people in jail without due process, we have histories full of systematic abuse of children/people with disabilities in care units, blatant disregard for constitutional rights by executive forces and you have these cases like this surfacing every other week.
You don't need the evil USA to reject biometric data gathering by government. You just need to get your largest boot and point it at the arse of the next public official that is responsible for YOU. Not some imaginary enemy behind a bit of water ffs... rant off
The mistake isn't some agreement with the USA, the problem is that this data might be available in the first place. And yes, this is a case where government/EU is NOT able to safeguard it.
Other than that the text is correct and then we should just need to deal with the realities of needing visas again.
> EDRi recommends the Commission and the Council to push back against the US government’s blackmail and refuse to sell people’s personal data
There is no leverage so I fail to see how this could succeed. Especially if said officials have zero problems with this kind of surveillance. They just have to pretend that they do.
> European countries suck completely on their own. There are people in jail without due process, we have histories full of systematic abuse of children/people with disabilities in care units, blatant disregard for constitutional rights by executive forces and you have these cases like this surfacing every other week.
This is kind of besides the point though right. If you think EU nations already have serious issues why would you then also export personal data to another nation that has those same issues and worse?
There is a clear difference between a local system that has access to your data, and a foreign one. You have no way to vote the foreign entity out of power, and have no say over what they are doing with your data
> have no say over what they are doing with your data
It seems like you already have no say over what they're doing with your data, and they're selling it to the US.
We (Europeans) have a say, there are mechanisms to block the EU council, such as European courts. We also have representatives that we elect. We don’t have similar things for the US
Given the recent chat control disaster I'd say our say is rather slim when it matters. Just put a decision into urgency mode (even though technically that's only allowed for the first hearing) and let it be a default pass unless two thirds reject the proposition. If it hits the courtrooms, rewrite it a little bit and effectively keep the status quo.
I might be misinformed, but I believe that American citizens have a way of forcing specific regulation instead of only forcing it to be considered. That would be something we don't have in the EU. So in the end it might just even out in that regard.
Yes there is a difference: For the average no name individual, the local authorities are a much bigger threat.
The data in the hands of officials in your jurisdiction is far more relevant than the other way around and there is little control about the data for domestic usage.
>There is a clear difference between a local system that has access to your data, and a foreign one. You have no way to vote the foreign entity out of power, and have no say over what they are doing with your data
On the flip side foreign entities mostly won't ruin your life over petty deviance or find a way to predate upon you like local ones will because the foreign institution cannot project violence into your jurisdiction cheaply and without opposition the way the local one can. If I could choose who got access to the exclusion of the other it would be the foreign power every single time.
I know this wasn't what you were getting at but it's worth looking at the other side of the coin too seeing as voting barely grants us any power over how local entities use our data.
in the EU you have no way to vote for things to change either
The EU Council is made up of delegates elected from member states. The EU Parliament is directly elected.
Just because countries keep electing people with variations of the same policies doesn't make it unelected.
Of course we do. Is it easy? No, because no party runs on it. Just like it’s not easy for Americans to vote to change either.
Yes you do. I elected my European member of parliament, and I elected my EU councillor. The elected EU councillors select the commissioner, a bureaucrat, and the elected parliament can block anything the commission puts to a vote. That’s two elected offices, and one bureaucrat that’s appointed, but can’t act without consent of the elected officer. Just like many other democracies around the world. It’s democracy, just with some responsibility delegated to bureaucrats, who can still be overridden or removed by elected representatives. What’s so hard for you to understand about that?
It's ok to be angry, but this is just wrong.
> There is no leverage so I fail to see how this could succeed.
Isn't there upside to the US too if more Europeans visit the US?
Exactly, and of course the EU can (and should) also reciprocate and apply the same restrictions to US travellers. There kind of visa-free agreements existed in the first place because they interest both countries involved.
If you're really planning on kicking some official's ass, you'd better do it quick before your feet are shackled.
Everyone needs an enemy to cope with their own flaws.
dirty -scus. saw this christian make mabies with those things
I assume this works both ways? And USA is in return 'about to sell our most sensitive data to the US for visa-free travel' too
Why isn't screening tech globalized on a planetary level? Shouldn't someone like INTERPOL take care of that?
No chance the world powers (US, China, France, UK, etc.) will allow something like that unless they are the one who create and enforce it. It's basically the first line of defense for homeland security: don't let terrorists into your country.
Isn't that why there's an org like Interpol with 192 countries "members" or "represented" I'm not sure which. Everyone owns it together kinda thing
I doubt the US would ever outsource something like this (border security) to an international organization like INTERPOL. It uses INTERPOL to track down and catch wanted people abroad, but that's it.
What do you think is stopping the US? It could be privacy but I don't think that would hold up in the public court as the US is way worse than EU when it comes to privacy regulations... what else? Control?
And we're not talking about "border security" in its entirety, just the screening/identifying part.
From USA's perspective, Interpol is a tool. The same as the rest of Europe's agency and governance concoctions (ICC).
It is not any kind of authority or even a reliable mechanism to do what it wants.
Sure, no problem with that, use Interpol's screening tech as a tool - that's what it is. Just a repository of information that you access and then decide what to do with the result just like any other API hit
Democracy at work. Can we have a referendum on this? Or dirty peasants don’t get a say in this?
Do it the EU way: ask the question, then ignore the answer.
Romania and Bulgaria are in the EU and don't even benefit from visa-free travel to the US.
EU selling out to the US, a shocker!
Alarmism doesn't help anyone.
So let me get this straight:
- Currently travelers to the US need to give biometric data each time they enter
- New DB connection between EU and US for this purpose
- People will _still_ need to give biometric data each time they enter in order to validate that they carry valid information
Further more, they claim that _the US_ will only request data from travelers. But, my country doesn't know if I travel and where. So the supposed privacy guarantees are empty claims. It's not 2012 anymore. Everyone knows better, as soon as they get access to that DB, they will start working on scraping all data from it.
There is 0 upsides to this.
The EU is not a serious institution, it's run by tasteless fraudsters
0 vision for the future
I could use much stronger words, but it's not worth it
How can you rally talents and visionaries when rulers are acting like that
Such a waste
Actually a plot point in Charles Stross' Empire Games trilogy from memory.
Sell? Is US paying for it?
Am I the only person increasingly paranoid about the inevitability of having to give my fingerprints to the government? Once they're out there you can't exactly change them and in the future i'm sure imaging technology will become significantly advanced enough that a portable device could be made that identify everyone who touched a scanned surface. Maybe it's just a phobia I've had since I was super young but fingerprints feel like a really sensitive piece of biometrics to give up. I live in the US and have traveled to europe a few times but have never been fingerprinted as far as I'm aware.
Finally.
These are the people that support "Decolourizing digital rights" (whatever that means).
Sounds like they also don't believe in borders or immigration enforcement, etc
I can't take them seriously
Biometric database thats supposed to not exist at all in the first place? Interesting.
On "selling out" claims. Yet again people not reading the article and trying to misrepresent who was the driving force:
> In 2022, the US government announced that it would require access to biometric databases of countries if they wish to keep visa exemption for their citizens travelling to the US
Big bad eu !!11!?!
So, that wasn't even Trump.
Biden kept a lot of Trump's policies inact, he just wasn't loud about it.
I wasn't trying to highlight who was president or not
This kind of reveals that the EU is undermined by lobbyists. The real actions are too obvious - this is an act of betrayal by EU "politicians".
Then again this is not uncommon either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...
At the least the orange king does not hide his attempt to pillage as much money as possible while refusing to explain who all visited the sexy Epstein islands. I have a ... slight suspicion some billionaires not known yet have also partied with underage girls there.
»It is on this basis that EU countries would then adopt their own bilateral EBSP agreements directly with the US (or adapt their existing arrangements).«
So nobody has sold anybody out yet. The solution is to never visit the USA.
You seem to have forgotten the first part of the "solution": be an EU citizen.
For those who are neither US nor EU citizens, both immigration systems are a hassle, and in my experience the EU's is sadly a worse one.
>The solution is to never visit the USA.
The negotiation is only necessitated by the insistence on making travel not a prerequisite for potential harm. The US requests to query information beyond the validity of documents they can prove to have been physically presented to US officers.
Borders are generally insane. But they are especially rich coming from countries, like the US or many European countries that got most of their wealth from pillaging other territories.
Walls and steel doors are bad enough but it's a good thing we're not birds, or else the world would be covered with wire mesh.