PDA

View Full Version : Disneyland USA - Land of the not so free !


The Great Chi
10-11-10, 23:25
Could not believe that they are fingerprinting people on entry to the park - I toatally refused to go on holiday there now.

I mean its only a kiddy park with mikey mouse and donald duck and they want your biometric data - what sort of county do we live in now :(

Its getting to be the pits and one step beyond !

INFO....
http://joyerickson.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/scanning-fingers-fingerprinting-at-disneyland/

larafan25
10-11-10, 23:25
Could not believe that they are fingerprinting people on entry to the park - I toatally refused to go on holiday there now.

I mean its only a kiddy park with mikey mouse and donald duck and they want your biometric data - what sort of county do we live in now :(

Its getting to be the pits and one step beyond !

INFO....
http://joyerickson.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/scanning-fingers-fingerprinting-at-disneyland/

I guess so people don't steal or if crimes happen.

xXhayleyroxXx
10-11-10, 23:28
That doesnt stop me wanting to go :p I've had my fingerprints taken before anyway.

marla_biggs
10-11-10, 23:29
I guess so people don't steal or if crimes happen.

That's what they want you to think ;)

larafan25
10-11-10, 23:30
That's what they want you to think ;)

Well what else would they do with them?

Encore
10-11-10, 23:32
Disneyland Paris FTW. :cool:

xXhayleyroxXx
10-11-10, 23:34
Disneyland Paris FTW. :cool:

Here Here :tmb: :p

The Great Chi
10-11-10, 23:37
That doesnt stop me wanting to go :p I've had my fingerprints taken before anyway.At the police station :p

Alpharaider47
10-11-10, 23:39
Great so now the lines will be even *longer* :rolleyes:

Don't see exactly what this is going to do for them other than scare people.

xXhayleyroxXx
10-11-10, 23:39
At the police station :p

heheh...yep. Stoopid past >.<

The Great Chi
10-11-10, 23:41
I am concerned as fingerprinting to me has always been for criminals, so is that what they are doing, checking us all out as criminals, checking against a massive data base ?

Its just big brother coming in by the back door, crazy !

And for what, a theme park, its just nuts :tea:

xXhayleyroxXx
10-11-10, 23:43
I suppose -- but then again Disneyland could be a haven for peados couldn't it?

xcrushterx
10-11-10, 23:45
It's not just Disney that are doing it. When I was in Orlando in June both Universal and Seaworld (and I'm going to assume Busch Gardens) were doing it too.

It's no big deal anyway. They don't take your name or anything, they just store them so that if someone else tries to use your ticket the fingerprints won't match and they won't be able to get in. They just do it so they can attach your ticket to you and you alone.

The Great Chi
10-11-10, 23:52
What was the matter with the old 'handstamp for the day' method?

I am sure you could refuse to accept fingerprinting, there must be other methods, otherwize they will get a lot of people walking away.

Sir Croft
10-11-10, 23:56
It's just a security measure, it isn't a big deal to me. We leave fingerprints everywhere, anyway...

xcrushterx
10-11-10, 23:56
It's not just for park re-entry :p They need it for tickets that span several days. I suppose it's just easier for them to do this than it is to get the UV lights out.

No one threw a hissy fit over having scans taken while I was there, so I don't think they will lose a lot of business over it. I don't see why anyone would even care. The fingerprints and pictures they take at customs getting into the country itself are much more invasive.

Rai
10-11-10, 23:58
That doesnt stop me wanting to go :p I've had my fingerprints taken before anyway.

Me too. At school. The police came round to show us a demonstration and they took everyone's fingerprints to show how they do it. I'm forever on file :vlol:

I think fingerprinting people before they can enter Disneyland is a bit extreme.

Alpharaider47
11-11-10, 00:01
It's just a security measure, it isn't a big deal to me. We leave fingerprints everywhere, anyway...

That's what concerns me. How much are people willing to give up in the name of security? I'm not saying I suspect the government of anything, but I think the point stands.

Cochrane
11-11-10, 00:01
Yeah, privacy, who needs that kind of crapÖ :rolleyes:

Seriously, this was the most WTF thing I heard in quite a while. Using biometric identification for something as trivial as a Disney theme park seems way over the top for me.

voltz
11-11-10, 00:04
One thing I know about DisneyLand is it's a great place for pedophiles to gather without anyone knowing their background. Now I understand registered offenders are in the system, having the requirement at the gate for fingerprint ID would be a step forward in preventing any from the chance of mixing into the population would it not?

xcrushterx
11-11-10, 00:09
One thing I know about DisneyLand is it's a great place for pedophiles to gather without anyone knowing their background. Now I understand registered offenders are in the system, having the requirement at the gate for fingerprint ID would be a step forward in preventing any from the chance of mixing into the population would it not?
Probably not, no. I don't even think they have the resources (or the right) to run the thousands upon thousands they scan each day from one park, nevermind all six, through a database of registered offenders. And even if they did, what would they do? Hunt them down while they've already started mingling?

The Great Chi
11-11-10, 00:09
Pedofiles, foriegn visitors with police records and possible top secret bearded international terrorists all heading for Disneyworld :eek:

Thats it I am not taking kids anywhere near the place :p

voltz
11-11-10, 00:14
Probably not, no. I don't even think they have the resources (or the right) to run the thousands upon thousands they scan each day from one park, nevermind all six, through a database of registered offenders. And even if they did, what would they do? Hunt them down while they've already started mingling?

Well some protection is better then nothing, or would you rather let everyone remain open season for known felons to prey on?

robm_2007
11-11-10, 00:22
Prolly to keep out Pedophiles.

and becuase Disney is a subsidiary faction of INTERPOL :pi:

they are keeping tabs on everyone ;cool:

Sir Croft
11-11-10, 00:27
That's what concerns me. How much are people willing to give up in the name of security? I'm not saying I suspect the government of anything, but I think the point stands.

Well, if it means it will help keeping pedophiles and kidnappers away from our kids, then what's to question? I'm willing to give up a lot of things if it will help to keep me safe and as long as it doesn't put me in danger, obviously. :p

Cochrane
11-11-10, 00:29
Well, if it means it will help keeping pedophiles and kidnappers away from our kids, then what's to question? I'm willing to give up a lot of things if it will help to keep me safe and as long as it doesn't put me in danger, obviously. :p

That mindset is a lot scarier than either terrorist or government conspiracies, IMHO.

xcrushterx
11-11-10, 00:29
Well some protection is better then nothing, or would you rather let everyone remain open season for known felons to prey on?
You really think these scans actually alert anyone to the presence of sex offenders? Of course they don't. And even if they did, again, what will they do? Throw them out? Have them arrested? For going to a theme park? Somehow I doubt it.

Alpharaider47
11-11-10, 00:34
Well, if it means it will help keeping pedophiles and kidnappers away from our kids, then what's to question? I'm willing to give up a lot of things if it will help to keep me safe and as long as it doesn't put me in danger, obviously. :p

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I think it's just cause for stopping and taking a look real quick. If you start giving things up in the name of security, where do you draw the line? That's all. I mean I'd be all for stopping pedos and such, but I don't think they've got the resources to use this effectively, and to me this opens a lil can of worms :p

Sir Croft
11-11-10, 00:35
I wouldn't go as far as allowing cameras to be installed inside my house, but scanning my fingerprint isn't really privacy violation.

That mindset is a lot scarier than either terrorist or government conspiracies, IMHO.

Why is that? Are you comparing fingerprints to being watched 24/7?

Cochrane
11-11-10, 00:53
I Why is that? Are you comparing fingerprints to being watched 24/7?

Yes, I do.

Obviously, it is not the same thing, but where do you draw the line? Biometric identification, of which fingerprints are a part of, is pretty invasive. It allows people to precisely trace you, not just then, but also in the future, and you can't ever change it either.

Sure, we may have nothing to hide. And sure, there may be a good cause (although I don't think Disney actually does check for child offenders. They wouldnít have access to the database). But if the government were to turn evil, they could get a long list of fingerprints of innocent people by just asking Disney more or less nicely. And they could use that information to track where you went, what paper you touched, what car you drove and so on. If you decided to become a member of a secret underground organization fighting for the restoration of democracy, or something like that, this could really hurt you. Or if a murder happened in a room you ever visited, you would automatically become a suspect.

Far-fetched? Of course it is. But the constitution of any modern state, starting with the US one, is based on the idea that we got to prevent such things right from the start, because we never know where to draw the line otherwise.

The Great Chi
11-11-10, 01:01
The above is a very good point.

When your fingerprints are taken, god knows where they may end up (eventually).

CiaKonwerski
11-11-10, 01:12
Could not believe that they are fingerprinting people on entry to the park - I toatally refused to go on holiday there now.

I mean its only a kiddy park with mikey mouse and donald duck and they want your biometric data - what sort of county do we live in now :(

Its getting to be the pits and one step beyond !

INFO....
http://joyerickson.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/scanning-fingers-fingerprinting-at-disneyland/

That is one reason why I am glad that they are doing fingerprints. I would not want some past criminal going into the park to possibly snatch one of my children etc. I believe it should be done. Disneyland is also a VERY big park, you never know who could just walk in there and plant a bomb, snatch a child, etc.

xcrushterx
11-11-10, 01:22
Lol @ some of the replies to this thread. Honestly, these won't stop pedos from getting into the park because as I and Cochrane said, Disney don't have the right to run any fingerprints against any kind of database.

I'll be very surprised if this is for any kind of security reason at all. They just attach the fingerprint to the ticket, and if anyone tries to use the ticket and doesn't match the fingerprint, it won't let them in. I fail to see how this is something that could cause some big government conspiracy because they don't even store any other identifiable information with the finger print. They don't ask for your name or ANYTHING at all.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 01:27
Finger print scanners? Run for your lives! It'll be RFID tags next! REBEL! REBEL!

CiaKonwerski
11-11-10, 01:34
Okay, so even if it won't stop pedos etc. from getting into the park, I hardly see why everyone disapproves.

Melonie Tomb Raider
11-11-10, 01:38
Who could refuse to go because they will be fingerpirnted? That is just silly. Obviously they have a reason for taking these precautions, so unless you have something to hide, you really should have nothing to worry about.

I worked at a bank for over a year, so something like this doesn't seem so far fetched. I'm used to it. Seriously, it's no big deal. No need in making mountains out of molehills.

Little-Lara
11-11-10, 01:40
/\ Agree.

I think mainly it's for the kids. But can anyone here really say that they're shocked? We all knew it was only a matter of time...and soon all the other theme parks will do the same.

Sir Croft
11-11-10, 02:17
Yes, I do.

Obviously, it is not the same thing, but where do you draw the line? Biometric identification, of which fingerprints are a part of, is pretty invasive. It allows people to precisely trace you, not just then, but also in the future, and you can't ever change it either.

Sure, we may have nothing to hide. And sure, there may be a good cause (although I don't think Disney actually does check for child offenders. They wouldn’t have access to the database). But if the government were to turn evil, they could get a long list of fingerprints of innocent people by just asking Disney more or less nicely. And they could use that information to track where you went, what paper you touched, what car you drove and so on. If you decided to become a member of a secret underground organization fighting for the restoration of democracy, or something like that, this could really hurt you. Or if a murder happened in a room you ever visited, you would automatically become a suspect.

Far-fetched? Of course it is. But the constitution of any modern state, starting with the US one, is based on the idea that we got to prevent such things right from the start, because we never know where to draw the line otherwise.

I understand your point. But I guess that's a little bit extreme. If the government were to turn evil, they wouldn't need to ask Disneyland for fingerprints, they have a huge database with the fingerprints they scanned for ID documents, right?

Andyroo
11-11-10, 02:31
This is not a 'security measure' to 'keep criminals away from kids' or anything like that. Jeez, even if it was, are they going to ban anyone with a criminal record from entering the park? Or arrest them for going to the park? No.

It's just another way for them to make more money. Greedy *******s fingerprinting people to prove they have a valid ticket.

:}hello friend
11-11-10, 02:44
Are they scanning the children too? I remember on TV when a child was scanned at an airport, and came up a registered terrorist.

voltz
11-11-10, 03:09
It's just another way for them to make more money. Greedy *******s fingerprinting people to prove they have a valid ticket.

oh and I suppose some people deserve a free pass? :whi:

Andyroo
11-11-10, 03:12
oh and I suppose some people deserve a free pass? :whi:

Never said they did.

MattTR
11-11-10, 03:13
So it's just that park? Because we have Disney World here and I didn't hear of this. :o

robm_2007
11-11-10, 03:14
Are they scanning the children too? I remember on TV when a child was scanned at an airport, and came up a registered terrorist.

perhaps it wasnt a child, but a dwarf?

Gladous
11-11-10, 03:15
I honestly don't see the problem with finger printing people. I think it's good for the protection of the kids and everyone else there.

But, you won't go to Disneyland because of that? I'm suspicious. :pi:

voltz
11-11-10, 03:18
perhaps it wasnt a child, but a dwarf?


http://chadholtz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mini_me.gif


:whi:


But, you won't go to Disneyland because of that? I'm suspicious. :pi:

I'm sure he probably has his reasons. ;)

oocladableeblah
11-11-10, 07:43
They don't do it anymore. I have been going to Dland all year long and never seen any sort of fingerprint scan. This article is from 2008 so they must have taken it away do to people complaints. Still that is ridiculous that they even did that.
As for the prices... season pass ftw :p

Avalon SARL
11-11-10, 07:53
I dont find it to be that scary or wrong
It is for security measures..
And it is old news anyways :p

Cochrane
11-11-10, 09:20
Why exactly are people only against trading freedom for security when it is about guns?

Regarding some of the common points here:

"Itís for child safety": No. Disney never claimed that the fingerprints were used for anything like that. This systemís only official goal is to prevent ticket fraud.
"The government already has all those fingerprints": Nope. It differs by country and state, obviously, but there is no US-wide database of absolutely everybodyís fingerprint.
"Not a problem if you got nothing to hide": I am a boring person, and I donít have anything that would get me in trouble if it were publicly known. But that does not mean I want everything about my life to be publicly known. With this policy, Disney makes it significantly easier to trace me. Why should I want that?

The Great Chi
11-11-10, 11:31
I honestly don't see the problem with finger printing people. I think it's good for the protection of the kids and everyone else there.

But, you won't go to Disneyland because of that? I'm suspicious. :pi:The 'I have nothing to hide' factor does not rub.

Whenever big brother tatics are brought to bare on the public, they say why are you frightened of this if you have nothing to hide.

I do not care, if I have anything to hide or not, but I do care about intrusive use of your biometric data.

This data is automatically filed away somewhere in private companies or goverment department, but eventually end up in a fingerprint database for mass checking of fingerprints against all sorts of criminal data.

Once you were innocent before proven guilty, but now, these prints are forever on record, and could easily be placed in a crime scene, or mistaken as your own, and suddenly you are in a heap of unwanted trouble.

They don't do it anymore. I have been going to Dland all year long and never seen any sort of fingerprint scan. This article is from 2008 so they must have taken it away do to people complaints. Still that is ridiculous that they even did that.
As for the prices... season pass ftw :p

Is this true of all theme parks now ?

If so then I for one am pleased that the public has fought back, and demanded this intrusion on your privacy be removed.

Miharu
11-11-10, 12:06
Who could refuse to go because they will be fingerpirnted? That is just silly. Obviously they have a reason for taking these precautions, so unless you have something to hide, you really should have nothing to worry about.

I worked at a bank for over a year, so something like this doesn't seem so far fetched. I'm used to it. Seriously, it's no big deal. No need in making mountains out of molehills.

This.

Fingerprints are fingerprints, we leave them everywhere, so I personally dont see it as a big deal.

Encore
11-11-10, 15:49
It's interesting that many people here who are against state intervention in anything related to economy, are perfectly willing to trade up their own privacy and freedom towards that same state when the subject involves terrorism.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 16:45
It's interesting that many people here who are against state intervention in anything related to economy, are perfectly willing to trade up their own privacy and freedom towards that same state when the subject involves terrorism.It's not a case of people willing to give up privacy and freedom, it's more of a case of just not overreacting.

Cochrane
11-11-10, 16:50
It's not a case of people willing to give up privacy and freedom, it's more of a case of just not overreacting.

Since when is it overreacting to say itís bad when private companies collect everybodyís fingerprint?

interstellardave
11-11-10, 16:50
It's interesting that many people here who are against state intervention in anything related to economy, are perfectly willing to trade up their own privacy and freedom towards that same state when the subject involves terrorism.

All you have to do is mention terrorism or say it's to "protect the children" and people line up to ban and burn books, be fingerprinted, get stopped at random checkpoints, etc.

MangelinaJolie
11-11-10, 16:58
If you have a problem with it then don't go. Your loss. That's less people in the line for me to wait on, anyway. It is overreacting to say that this is an invasion of privacy, etc. You're making the choice by going to their park. Nobody is forcing this upon you.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 17:00
All you have to do is mention terrorism or say it's to "protect the children" and people line up to ban and burn books, be fingerprinted, get stopped at random checkpoints, etc.And there's an example of an overreaction.

Since when is it overreacting to say itís bad when private companies collect everybodyís fingerprint?When did I say that was overreacting?

Lara's home
11-11-10, 17:03
Oh well, I was never interested in Disney Land anyway.


When did I say that was overreacting?

The line above.

Admles
11-11-10, 17:07
This is just like airport security. You don't have a choice.

If you don't like it, don't go.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 17:13
The line above.interstellardave didn't say what Cochrane said though.

interstellardave
11-11-10, 17:15
My statement is not an overreaction... there are plenty of people that are fine with all manner of intrusive and repressive measures being taken in the name of public safety. Unless you meant that people who advocate what I say they advocate are the ones overreacting?

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 17:21
My statement is not an overreaction... there are plenty of people that are fine with all manner of intrusive and repressive measures being taken in the name of public safety. Unless you meant that people who advocate what I say they advocate are the ones overreacting?Of course it was an overreaction. You have to do a little more than mention terrorism to get people lining up to burn books for example.

interstellardave
11-11-10, 17:27
Of course it was an overreaction. You have to do a little more than mention terrorism to get people lining up to burn books for example.

Well your problem is you are far too literal, LOL... but, yeah, I was exaggerating for effect, perhaps. But my statement isn't an overreaction; that's what those actions would be, and are, when and if they occur.

Look at the topic about the pedophile book... people want to ban it and burn it... they want a list of those who buy it, etc.

Excuses for fascistic behavior are all too easy to come across.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 17:43
Well your problem is you are far too literal, LOL... but, yeah, I was exaggerating for effect, perhaps. But my statement isn't an overreaction; that's what those actions would be, and are, when and if they occur.

Look at the topic about the pedophile book... people want to ban it and burn it... they want a list of those who buy it, etc.

Excuses for fascistic behavior are all too easy to come across.The pedophile book should certainly be banned.

Cochrane
11-11-10, 17:44
When did I say that was overreacting?
Right there:
It's not a case of people willing to give up privacy and freedom, it's more of a case of just not overreacting.

Any other questions?

interstellardave
11-11-10, 17:48
The pedophile book should certainly be banned.

Okay... so that's first on the list for banning, then. What's next? You make your list and others will make their lists and we'll see how many books "disappear" when you're all done.

And don't tell me I'm overreacting because if you have a criteria in mind for banning books, so do other people, and once some books are banned it only emboldens others to ban more... and, guess, what, everyone has their own "valid" reasons.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 17:49
Okay... so that's first on the list for banning, then. What's next? You make your list and others will make their lists and we'll see how many books "disappear" when you're all done.

And don't tell me I'm overreacting because if you have a criteria in mind for banning books, so do other people, and once some books are banned it only emboldens others to ban more... and, guess, what, everyone has their own "valid" reasons.I'm sorry but the "this leads down a slippery slope" argument doesn't work with me. I think most people would like to see that book banned for obvious reasons. What other books I and other people want banned are irrelevant.

Any other questions?I wasn't referring to Encore.

The Great Chi
11-11-10, 17:54
They don't do it anymore. I have been going to Disneyland all year long and never seen any sort of fingerprint scan. This article is from 2008 so they must have taken it away do to people complaints. Still that is ridiculous that they even did that.
As for the prices... season pass ftw :p

Does anyone know if this true of all USA theme parks now, that fingerprinting has been done away with ?

Cochrane
11-11-10, 17:57
I wasn't referring to Encore.
Not? Then why did you quote that post? You were clearly referring to something when you said "overreacting", and I really have no clue what. My interpretation was that you think it is overreacting to say that that this is a serious privacy problem. If I misunderstood you there, then please tell me what else you meant.

interstellardave
11-11-10, 18:02
I'm sorry but the "this leads down a slippery slope" argument doesn't work with me. I think most people would like to see that book banned for obvious reasons. What other books I and other people want banned are irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant when the topic comes up again. The only thing that prevents mob rule are the laws and the protections they provide. Keep eroding that protection based on "obvious" reasons and that protection will ultimately fail.

What I want to know is do you believe that laws and concepts such as free speech are universal--and based on solid principals--or do they only apply based on "what most people would like to see"? One system protects everyone--yes even a guy writing a book advocating pedophilia--the other protects no-one, not even you, ultimately.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 18:09
Not? Then why did you quote that post? You were clearly referring to something when you said "overreacting", and I really have no clue what. My interpretation was that you think it is overreacting to say that that this is a serious privacy problem. If I misunderstood you there, then please tell me what else you meant.I was responding to Encore's comment about people being happy to give up their freedom when it doesn't involve money. I was merely stating that most people aren't happy about it but at the same time aren't acting as if it's a massive encroachment on privacy. That last part was not directed at Encore.

It's not irrelevant when the topic comes up again. The only thing that prevents mob rule are the laws and the protections they provide. Keep eroding that protection based on "obvious" reasons and that protection will ultimately fail.

What I want to know is do you believe that laws and concepts such as free speech are universal--and based on solid principals--or do they only apply based on "what most people would like to see"? One system protects everyone--yes even a guy writing a book advocating pedophilia--the other protects no-one, not even you, ultimately.I don't think the book should be banned because most other people think so. Stop bringing up mob rule because it doesn't matter how many people try and defend the sale of this book I still think it should be banned because it advocates something as serious as pedophilia which is also illegal.

I don't know if you heard but there was a radical American-Yemeni Islamist who incited violence via videos on Youtube. Those videos were finally taken down for obvious reasons. Going by your logic those videos should still be up there as it would just be another case of mob rule.

xcrushterx
11-11-10, 18:10
So it's just that park? Because we have Disney World here and I didn't hear of this. :o
They do it at Disney World too. :p Along with SeaWorld and Universal Studios.

interstellardave
11-11-10, 18:16
I don't think the book should be banned because most other people think so. Stop bringing up mob rule because it doesn't matter how many people try and defend the sale of this book I still think it should be banned because it advocates something as serious as pedophilia which is also illegal.

I don't know if you heard but there was a radical American-Yemeni Islamist who incited violence via videos on Youtube. Those videos were finally taken down for obvious reasons. Going by your logic those videos should still be up there as it would just be another case of mob rule.

Ummm... pedophilia is not illegal. Child sexual abuse is illegal. BIG distinction. And you did use the "most people think so" excuse, btw.

Youtube takes down all kinds of content, and that's their choice. Amazon has chosen to sell this book based on their corporate principles. For them to buckle to pressure would be sad, really, but it would be their business. Some other authority banning it outright, however, is a bad precedent. You'll never convince me otherwise.

Cochrane
11-11-10, 18:23
I was responding to Encore's comment about people being happy to give up their freedom when it doesn't involve money. I was merely stating that most people aren't happy about it but at the same time aren't acting as if it's a massive encroachment on privacy. That last part was not directed at Encore.
Ah, so you do think there is at least some privacy problem. Now I understand what you meant.

I don't think the book should be banned because most other people think so. Stop bringing up mob rule because it doesn't matter how many people try and defend the sale of this book I still think it should be banned because it advocates something as serious as pedophilia which is also illegal.
Adding to what interstellardave already said, books and other forms of free speech depicting and to some degree even promoting criminal activities are not, themselves, illegal. Otherwise, there would be no movies like Oceanís 11, for example. I am not comparing this book to that movie, btw, Iím just pointing out that any new law that would prohibit such books might have serious unintended side-effects.

Alpharaider47
11-11-10, 18:28
Adding to what interstellardave already said, books and other forms of free speech depicting and to some degree even promoting criminal activities are not, themselves, illegal. Otherwise, there would be no movies like Ocean’s 11, for example. I am not comparing this book to that movie, btw, I’m just pointing out that any new law that would prohibit such books might have serious unintended side-effects.

That's very true. There are a lot of things that I've read that would probably be banned. Sounds kinda Fahrenheit 451 to me :p

This is more directed at Mad Tony, but I guess in general- How about Mein Kampf? It's not illegal here, but I think a lot of people would like it to be banned. I personally don't think it should be, but I have my reasons(which I'll explain if anybody's curious). On the issue of the pedo book, I think interstellardave and cochrane here have pretty well explained how I feel on that. I don't think it should be explicitly banned, but I don't think anybody should advocate that kind of thing...

Cochrane
11-11-10, 18:34
"Mein Kampf" is actually banned in Germany, except for research purposes. Under german law, there exist special bans for Nazi related things, bans that would be ruled unconstitutional if they were applied to anything else. I am pretty happy with that, but I know that there is a general free speech argument against that.

Edit: Ah, just saw that you edited your post and that this wasn’t directed at me.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 18:39
Ah, so you do think there is at least some privacy problem. Now I understand what you meant.Indeed. I don't see it as a massive issue though.

Ummm... pedophilia is not illegal. Child sexual abuse is illegal. BIG distinction.By the sounds of it the book is encouraging illegal activities. Exactly the same as a book explaining how to make a bomb.

And you did use the "most people think so" excuse, btw.As I said, the amount of people against the sale of this book isn't going to make me want it banned any less.

This is more directed at Mad Tony, but I guess in general- How about Mein Kampf? It's not illegal here, but I think a lot of people would like it to be banned.I don't think it should be banned because it's of historical significance.

"Mein Kampf" is actually banned in Germany, except for research purposes. Under german law, there exist special bans for Nazi related things, bans that would be ruled unconstitutional if they were applied to anything else. I am pretty happy with that, but I know that there is a general free speech argument against that.So you're ok with a book of historical significance being banned but not a book called "pedophiles guide to loving children"?

Alpharaider47
11-11-10, 18:41
"Mein Kampf" is actually banned in Germany, except for research purposes. Under german law, there exist special bans for Nazi related things, bans that would be ruled unconstitutional if they were applied to anything else. I am pretty happy with that, but I know that there is a general free speech argument against that.

Edit: Ah, just saw that you edited your post and that this wasn’t directed at me.

I can certainly understand why Germany would ban something like that though. I meant just within the US :o

Yeah I just was kinda throwing it out there. Was looking for MT's thoughts on it too.


I don't think it should be banned because it's of historical significance.
Fair enough, I'm kinda of the same belief.

So you're ok with a book of historical significance being banned but not a book called "pedophiles guide to loving children"?
If I read into Cochrane's statement correctly, it sounds like if you were doing research into Nazism/Hitler, you would still be able to access the book- Cochrane, is that correct? Could you explain a little bit more how that would work?

tomblover
11-11-10, 18:42
"Mein Kampf" is actually banned in Germany, except for research purposes.
It's the same here in Sweden, I believe.

Cochrane
11-11-10, 19:02
So you're ok with a book of historical significance being banned but not a book called "pedophiles guide to loving children"?
Nazis were, at least (but not just) for Germany, more than bad enough to justify a special case. Mein Kampf was the ideological foundation of genocide and a lot of other damage. You have to ask yourself: Is that pedophilia book actually as harmful? Were anywhere near as many people harmed because people read it and agreed with it? Is the book, in short, important enough to be treated as a special case?

You canít ban individual books by law, because that would always raise the question "Why ban that and not this?" I think for Mein Kampf, there is a very good answer to that question, because its effects were that outstanding. For a self-published ebook that nobody ever heard of, though, thatís probably not true. And if you ban a class of books because you want one example gone, there is an extremely good chance youíll hit books that should not be banned as well.

As for the historical significance:
If I read into Cochrane's statement correctly, it sounds like if you were doing research into Nazism/Hitler, you would still be able to access the book- Cochrane, is that correct? Could you explain a little bit more how that would work?
Actually, I just looked it up, and it turns out that it isnít truly banned. Only reprinting it is, because the copyright today lies with the state government of Bavaria, which does not allow any reprints. Owning the book and trading historic examples is actually legal. That doesnít really change my point of view above: I still think that it would be OK if it were banned. The bavarian government thinks that even when the copyright expires, it will still be illegal to produce and sell new examples in Germany, because it is racist propaganda. But researchers can get access to it, which I think is acceptable.

interstellardave
11-11-10, 19:06
The Nazis loved to ban and burn books...

Alpharaider47
11-11-10, 19:08
As for the historical significance:

Actually, I just looked it up, and it turns out that it isnít truly banned. Only reprinting it is, because the copyright today lies with the state government of Bavaria, which does not allow any reprints. Owning the book and trading historic examples is actually legal. That doesnít really change my point of view above: I still think that it would be OK if it were banned. The bavarian government thinks that even when the copyright expires, it will still be illegal to produce and sell new examples in Germany, because it is racist propaganda. But researchers can get access to it, which I think is acceptable.

Can't say I disagree with that :p Thank you :)

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 19:23
The Nazis loved to ban and burn books...Cool argument there.

Who's advocating burning books anyway?

@Cochrane: What about for education? I think it's important that people should see Hitler as an example of how not to be.

interstellardave
11-11-10, 19:26
Cool argument there.

Who's advocating burning books anyway?

@Cochrane: What about for education? I think it's important that people should see Hitler as an example of how not to be.

Not an argument; a statement...

Burning was mentioned on this forum in the other thread.

Cochrane
11-11-10, 19:29
@Cochrane: What about for education? I think it's important that people should see Hitler as an example of how not to be.
Commented versions for education purposes are freely available, although they only cover parts of the book. There are several groups that want to produce a critical commented version of the entire book, but so far, the bavarian state government has not allowed this.

JACOBryanBURNS
11-11-10, 19:34
Could not believe that they are fingerprinting people on entry to the park - I toatally refused to go on holiday there now.

I mean its only a kiddy park with mickey mouse and donald duck and they want your biometric data - what sort of county do we live in now :(

Its getting to be the pits and one step beyond !

INFO....
http://joyerickson.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/scanning-fingers-fingerprinting-at-disneyland/


I'm sorry, WHAT? :confused:

interstellardave
11-11-10, 19:35
I bought Mein Kampf and read it myself when I was a teenager. I like to read books myself rather than listen to what others say about them, or rely on snippets excerpted for sensationalistic value or for any other reason. Of course if a book no longer exists for some reason then you can't make your own mind up on it.

snork
11-11-10, 19:38
huh ? Did this (Disneyworld taking fingerprints) topic get merged with the Amazon one ?

oocladableeblah
11-11-10, 21:52
Is this true of all theme parks now ?

If so then I for one am pleased that the public has fought back, and demanded this intrusion on your privacy be removed.

For the theme parks around me Dland and Knotts don't have fingerprint scanners I have been to both recently. As for Universal Studios and Six Flags, I highly doubt they have them. I would have heard from friends if they did heh.

As for nationwide theme parks, I have never heard of any of them using fingerprints in the past/present until this thread popped up. I don't think any theme parks are trying it. If Disney tried it and it didn't work out and people got ****ed, I don't think other parks would be stupid enough to try it.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 22:47
Not an argument; a statement...

Burning was mentioned on this forum in the other thread.A pretty pointless one though.

Commented versions for education purposes are freely available, although they only cover parts of the book. There are several groups that want to produce a critical commented version of the entire book, but so far, the bavarian state government has not allowed this.That's a bit silly though isn't it? You have to have the whole book (and this applies to almost any book) to understand it properly.

Alpharaider47
11-11-10, 22:54
A pretty pointless one though.

That's a bit silly though isn't it? You have to have the whole book (and this applies to almost any book) to understand it properly.

The book yes, but perhaps they're looking at excerpts applied to something else? In which case it would make perfect sense. I look at it as like a school text book. How often do you end up reading the whole thing for the class?

xXhayleyroxXx
11-11-10, 23:10
Me too. At school. The police came round to show us a demonstration and they took everyone's fingerprints to show how they do it. I'm forever on file :vlol:

I think fingerprinting people before they can enter Disneyland is a bit extreme.

Its quite clever how they do it isnt it :p And maybe its a bit extreme yeah :p

Cochrane
11-11-10, 23:15
That's a bit silly though isn't it? You have to have the whole book (and this applies to almost any book) to understand it properly.

You sure? This is not the kind of book that isnít racist anymore if you donít see everything in context.

Punaxe
11-11-10, 23:18
(...) That's a bit silly though isn't it? You have to have the whole book (and this applies to almost any book) to understand it properly.

Not really so in Mein Kampf's case. As interstellardave will attest if he remembers, Hitler does a lot of reiterating of overly lengthy ranting that is very well suited for a convenient summary.

The state of Mein Kampf in the Netherlands is similar to the one in Germany: the state owns the copyright (to the Dutch version I assume - not sure how it works for other languages, but it comes down to the same thing either way) and does not allow a reprint. Educational use is accepted. A small majority of parliament voted to uphold this ban not too long ago, which I thought was quite disappointing because I do not believe any book should ever be legally banned.

Mad Tony
11-11-10, 23:41
You sure? This is not the kind of book that isnít racist anymore if you donít see everything in context.So? The whole book needs to be available so people can see what a nut he really is. Part of the reason Hitler actually got into power is because few people actually bothered to read his book and thus didn't realize what his plans were.

Squibbly
12-11-10, 00:21
I'm confused. I started reading this thread, then noticed it has merged with the Amazon thread. :confused:

As for what this thread is actually about, I don't find this a huge deal. Kind of over reacting, I suppose, but if you don't like it, don't go to Disneyland. If you live in the USA, anyway, you have next to no privacy already, so that part is moot point. The day the government starts making requests that you feel compromise your privacy is the day that you should make a fuss about it.
It's just your fingerprint. I don't see how that is intruding on anything private in your life.

interstellardave
12-11-10, 01:09
A pretty pointless one though.

Mentioning that the Nazis liked to ban books in a setting wherein the appropriateness of the banning of Mein Kampf is being talked about... pointless? Seriously? You don't get irony then.

Mad Tony
12-11-10, 01:29
Mentioning that the Nazis liked to ban books in a setting wherein the appropriateness of the banning of Mein Kampf is being talked about... pointless? Seriously? You don't get irony then.Actually, you said burning books, and you never mentioned the Mein Kampf debate, so one can only assume you were talking about the pedophile book as well.

Ward Dragon
12-11-10, 06:01
All you have to do is mention terrorism or say it's to "protect the children" and people line up to ban and burn books, be fingerprinted, get stopped at random checkpoints, etc.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about something like requiring people to get fingerprinted if they work at a school?

I'm confused. I started reading this thread, then noticed it has merged with the Amazon thread. :confused:

Indeed. I had both threads open at once and when I switched to this one, I wondered how the hell I had managed to open the Amazon thread twice :vlol:

Alpharaider47
12-11-10, 06:08
So? The whole book needs to be available so people can see what a nut he really is. Part of the reason Hitler actually got into power is because few people actually bothered to read his book and thus didn't realize what his plans were.

Erm, if you have to read the whole book to figure out what a nut he really was, then you probably need help :p Part of why he got into power was playing the system too if I remember correctly, maybe people reading his book would have done nothing?

Ward Dragon
12-11-10, 06:19
Erm, if you have to read the whole book to figure out what a nut he really was, then you probably need help :p Part of why he got into power was playing the system too if I remember correctly, maybe people reading his book would have done nothing?

But if only selected parts of the book are available, then there's the nagging suspicion that maybe it's been edited or certain parts of it have been held back to influence people's reactions to it. If the whole book is available, then it's clear that yeah, that really is what he said and yeah it really is that messed up XD

Alpharaider47
12-11-10, 06:51
But if only selected parts of the book are available, then there's the nagging suspicion that maybe it's been edited or certain parts of it have been held back to influence people's reactions to it. If the whole book is available, then it's clear that yeah, that really is what he said and yeah it really is that messed up XD

:vlol: fair enough

Anniversary Lara
12-11-10, 11:44
When I went to Disney World Orlando they took fingerprints but it did not bother me. I spent two wonderful days with my hubby there and that's what counts.

Mad Tony
12-11-10, 12:43
Erm, if you have to read the whole book to figure out what a nut he really was, then you probably need help :p Part of why he got into power was playing the system too if I remember correctly, maybe people reading his book would have done nothing?Who said people would have to read the whole book to know he was a nut?

The point I'm making here is that you can't just pick and chose which bits of history to show.

As for people reading his book, they may have been able to stop him sooner. I think a lot of people were genuinely surprised when Germany invaded Russia even though it would've been painfully obvious to anyone who read his book.