[mixmastamyk]

Obtuse non-sequitur. No one is talking about traveling with a gun. Chrisco already explains why.

Countries can make whatever restrictions they like; we don’t have to support them. That’s the power of choice. Has nothing to do with entitlement.

[Klonoar]

It’s not an obtuse non-sequitur, they’re just pointing out how ridiculous the parent comments stance is.

Travel has a lot to offer in terms of experience and it sounds like they already submitted the data points, may as well continue. Individual protest won’t solve it here, this would take significant changes in governments to ever pull off.

[mrguyorama]

>pointing out how ridiculous the parent comments stance is.

So now it's ridiculous for someone to want to not have to lay out their entire life story to a border agent to go into a different country? Funny, we did that a lot before now.

[surgical_fire]

US requires exactly that from a lot of countries. Good to see it being reciprocated.

[Klonoar]

This, yeah.

[mixmastamyk]

Travel to one country does not "already submit" in others. No one said "protest" would "solve it." Only thing one could possibly do is vote with currency, and one doesn't have to be even mildly outraged to just go elsewhere.

Please reread the full thread before responding. Don't need any more hot takes based on rejections of ideas not expressed.

[Klonoar]

I read the thread, but I appreciate your condescending tone and attempt to imply I hadn't. That's surely worked throughout the course of internet history. ;P

(I consider your root comment take to be shallow and I've noted that clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so. You're free to ignore it.)

[rconti]

I think Chrisco does a great job of explaining why they are not at all on the same level (a possession versus something that is an innate part of you) but it's also not an obtuse non-sequitur. You cannot revoke your fingerprints or face scan; on the other hand, it's also probably already too late, especially as the parent pointed out they had already submitted to this in one location. And no doubt your facial scan data can be collected surreptitiously anyway.

[mixmastamyk]

Explain how the original post about a peaceful traveler has anything to do with feeling entitled to travel with a gun! You can't, there's no connection. That's why it's obtuse and a dishonest argument to boot.

[rconti]

The parent poster no longer wishes to travel as a result of conditions of border crossing they don't agree with. Had they not elected to travel to Asia, they would have not been subjected to this particular set of laws, and a form of search they did not expect.

I imagine there were times in the past when one might not expect to have one's baggage searched at a border, and when the authorities in a given country began searching baggage, that would have been a bridge too far for some people.

I wouldn't expect to have to disrobe at the border to prove I wasn't carrying contraband, but I can't imagine why a country wouldn't be able to implement such a law if they so desired. The biometric "search" is considered much less intrusive than a strip search by many, though on the other hand, a strip search is merely embarrassing, while some folks might consider the examination of one's biometrics to be theft (although, of course, it is not actually theft).

I mean, really, the presumably peaceful gun-toting motorcyclist would have probably been turned away at the border, or worse. Whereas, on the other hand, the parent post did not imply that they would have been turned away (or worse) for having the "wrong shape" fingerprints. Unless, of course, those fingerprints indicated that the traveler was a convicted criminal on the run from that country's authorities. They're merely objecting to a form of data collection.

> Countries can make whatever restrictions they like; we don’t have to support them. That’s the power of choice. Has nothing to do with entitlement.

Indeed.