'Electronic Gateways': The new biometric identification Bill : Melbourne Indymedia

Electronic gateways
This is just a brief overview of the new migration biometric identification legislation that has been passed by the House of Representatives.
The Immigration department has proposed a new biometric system of border protection in a bill recently passed in the House of reps-“Migration Legislation Amendment (Identification and Authentication) Bill”. Taking the EU system Eurodac as its precedent, the Bill outlines an integrated biometric identification database whereby ‘non-citizen’ will have to submit a range of “personal identifiers” to the government including finger prints, hand prints, photos of face and shoulders, measurement of height and weight and iris scans. This information will be centralized in a national database for the use of immigration officials.

The Immigration department claims it is aimed at cracking down on “identity fraud” where a non-citizen “pretends to be someone else in order to obtain a particular immigration outcome”. The bill deepens the criminalization of non-citizens, explicitly linking the necessity of bio-metric testing to combating terrorism, “cross border crime” as well as “social security fraud and tax evasion” of ‘lawful and unlawful’ non-citizens. In a similar way to the existence of detention camps, the Government justifies this system by claiming it will ensure Australia is not a “‘soft target’ for terrorists and other people of concern”.
The current migration regime already allows biometric testing, by force, on anyone who is in an immigration camp. This bill reiterates this power and while it does not claim that direct state force may be used to do biometric tests on all non-citizens it makes it clear that non-compliance will result in being thrown into a camp or the invalidation of visa claims. The bill further deepens the sovereign-like status of the immigration minister giving him the power to decide which biometric tests will be used and in which circumstances.

The Government intends to set a precedent with the Bill for the expansion of this regime beyond its immigration status into an “electronic gateway” whereby the interaction of any body with the State, including movement across borders, applying for social security etc, would be subject to a series of biometric verification tests.

The immediate reality of this bill is that it gives the state immense power to deepen its control and regulation not just of the movement of people across Australia’s borders, but within them as well. It allows the State to further narrow the basis on which those applying for asylum will be granted visas and refines the process whereby the State can track down those deemed illegal- visa over stayers and those who escape from the camps- in order to round them up into camps and deport them.

Of course there are no surprise from the ALP. Shadow minister for Immigration Nicola Roxon is pursuing labor’s ‘me too!!’ line since Labor is the ‘party of immigration control’. Her only objection is that the bill is does not rigorously outline the regulation procedures for a biometric system.

Ve vill connect existing government and commercial databases.

We'll start by connecting most of the large government databases that contain information on domestic activity, including those containing customs, immigration, law enforcement, military and Internal Revenue Service files. The network will eventually include state and local tax rolls, political contribution lists, and educational and voting records.

In the short term, the Arbeit party government will build software that translates queries between the various databases (since its current information systems are the digital version of the Tower of Babel). A permanent or final solution will be to create rigid requirements forcing all reichs-agencies and contractors to converge around a common set of standards for data storage and access.

Reichs-Contractors will eventually write translation gateways into many commercial databases so that searches against the Arbeit parties government database will be seamlessly integrated. Some of these commercial databases will be straightforward, containing data such as credit reports, phone and other utility bills, and transportation/reservation information from airlines, rental car companies and hotels. Others might be more subjective and involve human appraisals such as profiled direct-marketing lists, school guidance counselor records and comments made by utility or government workers.

Ve vill match them to commercial information such as credit reports (using social security numbers).

Initially, translation systems would be "data-matched" against government records. The Reichs-government will eventually mandate that all commercial databases include a field for social security numbers. This will likely result in legislation making it a crime for consumers to give false social security numbers to companies. It might even require these companies to deny service to the curmudgeons and communists who still refused to provide that information.

This system will eventually access tens of millions of real-time sensors for up-to-the-minute threat assessment.
Add tens of millions of cameras and other sensors.
This process of adding sensors is already underway at several different agencies. Adolph Haermeyer is leading the way in southeren Bavaria.These sensors include visual cameras at various public places, such as storefronts, street corners, highways, toll roads and airports. Some already rely on experimental face-recognition software. Other sensors will include identification devices at checkpoints in public buildings and eventually in all transportation terminals.

Required vill be national ID cards and all blood tied to a biometric database.

These devices will require some sort of universal identification card that carries biometric information. The biometrics will include fingerprints, retinal scans, face measurements, blood types and DNA. (The military police are already collecting DNA information to facilitate body identification.) Of course, this will require a national ID card and, even more importantly, a universal database of biometric information; otherwise it vould be useless. The easiest way to build up this database is to collect the information from schoolchildren. An alternative method would be to link the biometric collection to draft registration for citizens and to visa issuance for resident aliens.

Tracked phone calls and e-mail, and generated diagrams of social groupings using traffic analysis.

An important element of our new predictive system will be the gathering of information on social interactions and on "networks" of individuals who communicate as a group. Intelligence analysts refer to this process as "traffic analysis." Expansion of the Carnivore/DCS-1000 program to encompass most Internet-based communications, used together with records of phone transactions, should provide enough information.

Naturally, detailed analysis will also require the content of the conversations. Since the system will have to reconstruct activity after the fact, this implies that all communication from all Internet users will have to be stored.

Ve plan to build technology that will "guess" what people are thinking and predict what they might do.
Since terrorism is ideologically based, anyone is a potential terrorist. Under this proposed system, then, everyone's actions will have to be under constant scrutiny. But the biggest problem with large-scale information systems is figuring out what's important in the data that's being stored.
Since terrorism is ideologically based, anyone is a potential terrorist.
Since this is a threat-assessment system, it will deploy a so-called heuristic processing, or rules-based analysis, similar to what's used by credit scoring systems to determine consumer creditworthiness. But the terrorist-profiling system will have much more sophisticated and insightful rules, crafted by psychologists, and will have much more data to work with. It will look for ideological leanings, as demonstrated by choice of reading material, organization memberships and friends, or psychological disturbances, as evidenced by behavioral changes such as a sudden switch in grocery-buying habits.
Researchers will be free to experiment with many types of correlations of individual behavior--such as dietary habits, travel behavior and social grouping--to determine the best way to assess the threat-potential of everyone, Australoids and aliens alike.
Ve vill give everyone a secret threat score or loyalty rating.
Since millions of government workers need access to these threat profiles--and most will not be trained in the nuances of interpreting psychological information--threat scores similar to credit scores are the most useful way to display the results of these profiles. In this way, any government employee with access to the system will be able to look up a person's threat score based on their social security number, driver's license or immigration visa number.

In the screensaver color coded.

People may get used to the cameras, but threat profiling will cause them to make lifestyle adjustments. We've become accustomed to the idea that our credit report can affect our chances of getting a job, renting an apartment or buying a car. The threat score would serve the same function in all of our interactions with government employees.
As this Predictive Data Security System threat profiling develops, people will quickly find out what kind of behavior will draw attention and what's safe. They might avoid certain books and take extra-special care to find out the background and opinions of their friends, colleagues and employees.
If a person unfortunately gets a high threat score--perhaps because of something that one of their friends or family said--they might reduce that score through some socially useful action such as providing information on one of their neighbors.

The Arbeit party will set you free from fear,I promise you.
Homeland security means everything to me,IBM,Iron broom Mark and der Fuhrer.EIN CREAN! EIN VOLK! EIN REICH!

Most activists I know have at least one arrest under their belts and so,a record on file.My workaround involves getting re arrested,(be creative!) and thus being reprinted,(ALL arestee's get finger printed these days,new polizie) With your new arrest start making cascading FOI requests.They are grizzeling about all the trouble they're having with IBM and access logs.So...

This might buy us a little time till we get our logic bombs on board and the second wave of Jihad hits home.Then we could gather a lot of recon intel for the day of the rope.This cant go on it is us or them.The race to save the planet has begun,we will win because we MUST win.

Give me anarchy or give me death.

Hey, I didn't even write anything that bad, and you didn't post it. What's up with that? You all aren't getting paranoid over their are you. Has North Korea already taken over or what? THis Orwellian tracking is a nightmare.

For Your Information.

first our masters register and measure "them"

and
then
...

they register all of "us"

for our safety and convenience.

of course

THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT against the implementation of biometric I.D. was presented to the Ontario Legislature in 1997.

THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO enacted legislation (BILL 142) to enable the municipalities to emloy biometric technoloiges for the purpose of identification.

THE GOVERNMENT at the time, had a majority; no amount of opposition could prevent the Bill from passage.

THE HANDSARD RECORD of the argument against biometric identification is presented below, in its entirety, for your reference in the hope that it may assist in your own efforts.

THE "CHAIR" of the commitee has the final chilling word on the matter.

******************

Civil Rights and Privacy Committee presentation,
Tuesday 30 September 1997 (biometric identification)

Calendar

- -----------------------------------------------

CONTENTS

Tuesday 30 September 1997

Social Assistance Reform Act, 1997, Bill 142, Mrs Ecker / Loi de 1997
sur
la réforme de l'aide sociale, projet de loi 142, Mme Ecker

Unemployed Workers Council
Mr John Maclennan
Ms Janie Rollins

Ombudsman Ontario
Ms Roberta Jamieson

Metropolitan Toronto social services division, community services
department
Mr Gordon Chong
Mr Eric Gam

Roomers' Rights Toronto
Ms Mary Taylor

Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Mr Alan Borovoy

Ontario Dental Association
Dr Jack Cottrell

Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto
Mr Bill Worrell
Mr Andrew Mitchell

Queen Street Mental Health Centre
Mr John Trainor

Canadian Hearing Society
Mr Gary Malkowski
Mr James Hardman

CUPE Ontario
Mr Brian O'Keefe
Mr Peter Paulekat

Toronto Association of Neighbourhood Services
Mr Bob Gwilliam
Ms Liane Regendanz

Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Mr Terry Mundell
Mr Ed Doon

Justice for Children and Youth
Ms Sheena Scott

Scarborough Community Legal Services
Ms Nancy Vander Plaats
Mr Hudson Janisch

Mr Roger Strickland

Ontario Federation of Labour
Mr Duncan MacDonald

Ontario Association of Social Workers
Mr Dan Andreae
Ms Dorothy McKnight
Ms Joan MacKenzie Davies

Burlington Reuse Environmental Group
Mrs Isabel Cummings
Mr George Pocock

Social Assistance Action Committee, Metropolitan Toronto
Ms Melodie Mayson
Ms Italica Battiston
Ms Yvonne Skof

Civil Rights and Privacy Committee
Mr Matthew Trowell & Steve Rutchinski

Mr Rob Davis

Canadian Pensioners Concerned Inc, Ontario division
Ms Mae Harman

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Présidente
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)

ViceChair / VicePrésident
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre / -Centre ND)
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview L)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville L)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William L)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Oriole L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South / -Sud L)
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming L)
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine ND)

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Tonia Grannum

Staff / Personnel
Mr Ted Glenn, research officer, Legislative Research Service
- -----------------------------------------------

The committee met at 1530 in room 151.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM ACT, 1997

LOI DE 1997 SUR LA R&EACUTE;FORME DE L'AIDE SOCIALE

CIVIL RIGHTS AND PRIVACY COMMITTEE

The Chair: May I ask the Civil Rights and Privacy Committee to come forward, Matthew Trowell and Steve Rutchinski. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here so late in the evening and being so patient with us.

Mr Matthew Trowell: Good evening. My name is Matthew Trowell, and this is Steve Rutchinski. We are here tonight to talk about what I feel is the most offensive aspect of this legislation, and that is the introduction of biometric identification.

The introduction of biometric identification into this program arose, as you probably know, through an initiative in Metropolitan Toronto by Metro Community Services. There are a number of references in this outline from a report of Metro Community Services, social services division.

I would like to point out a few things that I think the public should be aware of that I believe they aren't. One thing is that it appears that mandatory biometric ID will not be limited to welfare recipients. That is why we're here tonight to talk about it in terms of how it relates to
Bill 142, because we see Bill 142 as the thin edge of the wedge. We want to stop it right here, right now, and we don't want it going any further. So our objective is, first of all, to get rid of it here, if nothing else, and then after that to make sure it doesn't resurface anywhere else. As long as we have to work at that, that's what we're prepared to do.

Metro council, in their report, indicated they would like that "the province be urged to further pursue the use of biometric technology in other government sectors, such as health and transportation." They would also like to "request the federal government to investigate the use of biometric technology for identification purposes," and that's just simply identification. We don't know what kind or for what.

Even our own Premier has said, and I'm sure most of you have heard, that maybe this is the best foolproof method to look at our health cards and to look at how you access all government programs, and "If there are those concerned that some are being singled out...then that's the best way to remove the stigma, we'll all use the thumb imaging or the same foolproof technology."

2110

One of the bureaucrats from the Metro Corporate Access and Privacy Office indicated that "We want to set a model...for all jurisdictions in Canada." What I'm not sure about is whether this is just a very ambitious person or whether this person is deluded, because I don't see how a non-elected official in a municipal council has any jurisdiction over anything outside
of their office in Metro Toronto.

Although it is asserted otherwise in the human services committee report, that biometric ID will be limited to finger scanning, the evidence seems to contradict that, because in the same report the department continues to advocate to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario for legislation which will devolve sufficient authority to local communities and delivery agencies to enable the use of innovative technologies to solve long-standing problems.

In order to achieve that, a sufficiently vague law had to be drafted. In Bill 142, we have that evidence, because Bill 142 requires that people "provide evidence permitting identification of the person by means of photographic images or encrypted biometric information." That's really all it says: "encrypted biometric information." Most people I speak with
don't know what that is.

The same bureaucrat who wanted to set this as an example for our whole nation, where you have a law that says nothing, this is how she interprets the law: "The [previous] act provides authority to collect" - that's the act before this new Bill 142 - "personal information for the purpose of identifying individuals.... The [previous] act is silent as to what constitutes acceptable identification, and institutions therefore exercise discretion in establishing standards." Well, I personally don't believe that is true. Institutions don't exercise discretion in determining what's an acceptable standard. Without some form of permission from the general population, you can't simply at will determine what's acceptable identification and then change it the next day as it suits you.

Because biometric information means a lot of things to different people, it can include anything from retina scanning to DNA profiling, X-rays, tattoos, radio frequency transmitters or what have you. If all that's required is biometric information about people, then that's simply unacceptable because it's so open to interpretation.

The previous speaker indicated that the system would be managed by outside agencies, including, for instance, Citibank. Citibank will be in control of the system, and they will choose whomever they wish to have as their partner as a biometric identification supplier. In all likelihood they will probably choose someone like Lockheed Martin. They are America's premier military contractor and, according to their own PR, developers of the most advanced scanning technology in the world. Since they're free to choose their partners, they will likely choose someone from down there.

There are other statements here that I want to address if I have the time, and I hope I do. This report indicated that the banks - and this was part of their rationale for bringing this material forward - were "testing and evaluating finger scanning systems as an initial step towards cardholder verification and authentication, thereby replacing the use of a personal
identification number." Then they went on to slam the banks about a number of other things.

However, I asked the banks, and I got a response. But prior to the suggestion that banks were checking out this technology for themselves, the Canadian Bankers' Association had indicated in February, in response to the criticism that the banks made it increasingly difficult for people of low incomes to access banking services - they stated in Metro council that
"Simply obtaining a bank account can be inordinately difficult: up to three pieces of identification can be required, and only certain types of identification accepted; an account may not be opened for those with minimal assets;" - that only two, not three, pieces of ID are required, photo identification is desirable but not mandatory and "banks will accept sponsorships or personal references from branch staff or responsible customers." In other words, a person can serve as a form of identification for a person with no identification. So if the banks can live without it, I don't understand why this government can't live without it.

Not only did the Toronto-Dominion Bank indicate to me that they have no intention of introducing finger scanning technology, but the Scotiabank indicated the same thing and so did CIBC; and, over the telephone at least, the Royal Bank indicated the same thing, indicated that they withdrew from participation in the program because they were so opposed to the introduction of finger scanning. Most banks understand that customers don't want this, and therefore they aren't even interested in implementing it. The only place where there's a captive audience to implement it is right here in government, and especially on the backs of the people who are most in need of social services. They will find it most difficult to refuse on the basis of their own principles, I'm sure.

If you'll pardon me, I think the essential problem here is that people who want to introduce this don't understand that people's bodies are private property. They don't belong to you; they belong to them. Their right to refuse is paramount. Your right to request information about people is limited. As it stands right now, external forms of ID serve as a shield between people and their government, a very necessary shield. They keep people apart from people, and they keep governments away from people's bodies and from intruding on their privacy.

In a free society, no one has access to your body without your permission. To demand involuntary access to your body under threat of the termination of or as a prerequisite for eligibility for social benefits, services, privileges, citizenship and birth rights or participation in commerce, even the innocent enjoyment of social or political life in general, is criminal coercion. You can't deprive people of something because of their refusal to give their body to you.

Essentially, because biometric ID requires contact with the human body, a person cannot even express, if they are compelled by the state to use this form of identification, any form of resistance. You can't refuse or consent if your ID is your body and you're forced to use it.

Anyway, I also believe that mandatory biometric ID will likely lead to things like, for instance, discrimination through accidental physical injury. A person who loses a body part or doesn't have a body part in the first place may find it very difficult to provide you with that information, especially if they have to provide you with that information before they're going to be entitled to social services. It just doesn't make sense.

I believe that, for instance, extortion may become a very real problem when people's ID is their body. I spoke with Mr Al Leach about this problem, and the first thing he said was: "Yes, well, you know, right now it's pretty bad. You have your ID, and somebody can come up with a gun to your head and say, 'Hand over your ID.'" That's pretty bad, but can you imagine if your ID is your body? What have you got to lose? Well, your fingers, for instance, or your eyes or whatever manner of identification it turns out to be. For instance, I'm not sure whether or not you're familiar with the Shining Path, but they had a tendency to lop off the thumbs of their political opponents [a thumb-print was a voting requirement]. That may prove exciting to some of you, I'm sure. We all know too that technology is pretty changeable - I'll try and finish it up here.

2120

Technological change in the past was measured in ages - centuries, decades, years - but right now we're measuring it more or less like the weather, on a day-to-day basis. The pace of evolution is such in technology that the time between concept and production is sufficient to render a product obsolete, information technology especially so. The real purpose of the modern marketplace is not to distribute the latest advances in technology, but really to dispose of the spoiled produce of industry. So you're being sold, for approximately $16 million, a system that is already obsolete.

As an indication, just a few examples of things that have happened since the introduction of this bill: For example - and I've included the enclosure from Computer World magazine - a chip smaller than a grain of rice, called a medical telesensor, a tiny chip applied to the skin to
measure body temperature and other vital signs and transmit the data via radio signals. The first application, of course, is military.

The Chair: Mr Trowell, this is a fascinating presentation, truly, but I must ask you to wrap up.

Mr Trowell: I doubt it very much, but okay, one more thing. If this government is serious about securing, protecting and defending our civil liberties, then it can start by eliminating the provisions in Bill 142 permitting the use of biometric information as an involuntary means of personal identification. If you're serious about justice, then you can investigate that fraud and you can utilize the existing system of justice in order to prosecute the offenders. That's what the system is there for.

It's individuals committing crimes, not groups of people. I think this government has really slandered a class of people by suggesting that there is fraud within welfare. No one else is permitted to comment on groups or classes of people like that without proving their accusations. That's what you have to do first. I don't really have much more to say.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You had the committee spellbound with your presentation. I regret we don't have time for questions.

Pssst Candadian Biometric I.D. Opponents - you forgot to close your meeting! They are still waiting for you to close so they can all go home. (Joking)

On a serious note though I can see your point. BUT! I doubt that Mr Howard and his House of Representatives can or will! biometric identification is just some thing else for the Howard government to get wrong and stuff up completely. Mark my words "The best is yet to come!"

Electronic gateways This is just a brief overview of the new migration biometric identification legislation that has been passed by the House of Representatives. The Immigration department has proposed a new biometric system of border protection in a bill recently passed in the House of reps-“Migration Legislation Amendment (Identification and Authentication) Bill”. Taking the EU system Eurodac as its precedent, the Bill outlines an integrated biometric identification database whereby ‘non-citizen’ will have to submit a range of “personal identifiers” to the government including finger prints, hand prints, photos of face and shoulders, measurement of height and weight and iris scans. This information will be centralized in a national database for the use of immigration officials

So they want to introduce a biometric identification database whereby non-citizen’ will have to submit a range of “personal identifiers” to the government including finger prints, hand prints, photos of face and shoulders, measurement of height and weight and iris scans. I can understand finger prints, hand prints, photo of face - I dont know why the shoulders - sounds absolutely ridiculously stupid to me, but thats the Howard government and its crocks for you. I can understand measurement of height! BUT the weight? Come on now! You seriously cannot tell me that a person is going to stay the same weight constantly. To bad if a person were to be weighed before coming over to Australia then just before coming to Australia suffered weight loss for what ever reason! What then may I ask will happen? Will it be a case of well this citizen doesnt match their weight so we'll just send them packing back to their own country? Seriously though I think using what a person weighs as a means of identification for biometric identification is just going way to far. Iris Scans? - This has me absolutely bamboozled as to why in the hell they would want a scan of a persons Iris/es! Can some one with better knowledge than I please elaborate on why they would want a Iris Scan? I wonder what will be asked of people next? A Urine test? This would be to rule out drugs right? Then again who'd know what they will come up with next. Or wait on! May be they will be asked by the Howard government to under go a blood test to screen for any diseases or abnormalities! Don't laugh this may well be on the agenda!

Well I guess the bottom line is that if the biometric identification does come in via the Howard Government we can expect much more refugees trying to smuggle their way in to Australia - and who can blame them? - certainly not I!

It cannot be done I know - but as an example: If God once we died wanted identification including finger prints, hand prints, photos of face and shoulders, measurement of height and weight and iris scans, blood tests, urines tests etc who would want to die in the first place?

Firstly:We all have no choice! We have to die some time, some where! Like it or not!

Secondly:We all have no choice but to accept the new migration biometric identification system whether we like it or not. Same goes for the non-citizens wanting to migrate to Australia.

I will now conclude with the new migration biometric identification legislation coming in who would want to migrate to Australia any how? Ask your self this! Would You???? Although I do not agree with all the biometric identification rules my answer would be if I had enough money and were desperate for a better life then what I already had I would bravely face it and do it. Honestly what option would a honest person have? I guess my theory is if you are desperate enough for a better life in a different country whether you agree fully or not with the migration biometric identification legislation you would still do what they ask and give over what they require. After all it is a small price to pay for a far better life style then what you previously had. So I finish with asking you this question: Would you go through the new migration biometric identification legislation system for a new and better way of life? (before answering this question picture your self in a place with no running water or power and living in a hovel! OR picture your self in a country where war was constant and you feared for your life greatly!)

Yes if this new migration biometric identification system were relevent in 1950's when my now deceased grandparents chose to migrate from Holland. I am sure they still would have chosen to migrate! Their country was war torn and life for them was was extremely poor. Life was far better for them in Autralia.

Yep the good wins over the bad in the new migration biometric identification legislation system in this case!

The only people who can seriously rationalize biometric I.D. as a priory necessity of a "better life" are people who will not be subject to it; the same kind of people who ask questions, rhetorically, of everyone and answer them as if they were speaking for everyone, without giving anyone a chance to answer for themselves, just as biometric I.D. does; people who see other people as statistics and cattle, production fodder, potential votes, not human beings; fear-driven people; people who regard immigrants with suspicion, as a threat to their own so-called good life but fail to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) who arrogantly assume a sense of entitlement to rulership, forgetting (or ignoring), in a massive memory hole, the casual brutality and indifference with which they treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from.

The only people who can seriously rationalize biometric I.D. as a priory necessity of a "better life" are people who will not be subject to it; the same kind of people who ask questions, rhetorically, of everyone and answer them as if they were speaking for everyone, without giving anyone a chance to answer for themselves, just as biometric I.D. does; people who see other people as statistics and cattle, production fodder, potential votes, not human beings; fear-driven people; people who regard immigrants with suspicion, as a threat to their own so-called good life but fail to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) who arrogantly assume a sense of entitlement to rulership, forgetting (or ignoring), in a massive memory hole, the casual brutality and indifference with which they treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from.

(primarily European) I ought to have said.

forgot the bloody html by Primates on Wheels, Monday October 13, 2003 at 10:28 PM but fail to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) who arrogantly assume a sense of entitlement to rulership, forgetting (or ignoring), in a massive memory hole, the casual brutality and indifference with which they treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from. C'mon now Primates on wheels put your glasses back on and face reality my friend! Most people fail to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH! Take a good old captain cook around Melbourne some time!!!! Most people are themselves more than likely to be the offspring of immigrants any thing other then British today! Most people themselves are more than likely to be offspring of immagrants that are Italian, Greek, Dutch, Asian, etc etc Mate! Have you forgotten that Australia is now Multicultural? I for one am Most definately NOT the offspring of immigrants likely to be British descent! Sorry to disappoint you mate! I may have been born and and bred in Australia TRUE!BUT!!!! my descents are no where near flamen British!

Your statement! treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from.

Sorry to disappoint you again mate! BUT!!!! I will NOT sit here and feel bad over past descents whom treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from! This has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with we Australian people of today thank you very much! I realise that you may be indiginous your self but please stop trying to punish we Australians of today for what happend long before we were even the twinkle in our parents eyes! Don't try and punish us for some thing that is completely out of our control! We have no power to stop it and we have no power to change it my friend! We are not GOD! You want to change it? Start by praying for a miracle!

but fail to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent)

What you fail to see primates is that no one fails to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) who arrogantly assume a sense of entitlement to rulership, forgetting (or ignoring), in a massive memory hole, the casual brutality and indifference with which they treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from. We have NO power to stop it and we have NO power to change it whether we be from british descents or not.

What do you expect those who are offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) to do mate? Do you wish for them to kick every immigrant's ass out of Australia and give the land back to the indiginous? Because if that is the way you think you are in for a major disappointment until the day you die. Because it aint going to happen! No way no how my friend. Sad but true!

I fail miserablely to see what your statement but fail to see that they themselves are, more than likely, the offspring of immigrants> (also likely of primarily British descent) who arrogantly assume a sense of entitlement to rulership, forgetting (or ignoring), in a massive memory hole, the casual brutality and indifference with which they treated the indiginous inhabitants from whom they stole the land in the first place and whom they entirely subjugated and segregated themselves from. has to do with the new migration biometric identification legislation that has been passed by the House of Representatives. New biometric identification will be required for all 'non-citizens' entering Australia, who may I add have nothing what so ever to do with the british taking the land of the indiginous centuries ago! You indiginous people ( I have no disregard or hate for you at all - I love indiginous people with all my heart) ask us who are not indiginous to stop with the racialism but here you are trying to shove what the past British descents did down our throat some thing chronic! Fair go mate! If you want us to stop with the racialism than mate you need to stop too! Fair is fair after all! Again I shall repeat for your own knowledge what I have said above my friend. Past british descents taking the land off the indiginous centuries ago has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with we Australian people of today thank you very much! I realise that you may be indiginous your self but please stop trying to punish we Australians of today for what happend long before we were even the twinkle in our parents eyes! Don't try and punish us for some thing that is completely out of our control! We have no power to stop it and we have no power to change it my friend! We are not GOD! You want to change it? Start by praying for a miracle!

I will not go with out saying that I and many of we Australians live in the hope that we people of Australia and the indiginous will come to some peaceful agreement and conclusion some day soon!

"Black, white or otherwise we are all ONE in the eyes of God and so it shall be!" Peace be with you Primates on wheels!