maratc

I don't think that "collecting" vs "verifying" thing practically differs in anything (except for maybe intent that I don't really care for).

They printed four of my fingers the first time (presumably for "collecting") and the same four fingers the second time (presumably for "verifying"), so it was the same procedure, taking the same time. Taking a picture of me also took the same time in both cases (I had to position myself in the frame "just right".)

With that, it should take the same time "collecting" from X people as it would "verifying" X people, and so the ratio of "first-time" visitors is irrelevant.

The linked article argues that our pictures and fingerprints are "our most sensitive data" and it's bad giving it to anyone, like the US Government. I tend to agree on the "sensitive" part but not sure I agree on "US Govt" part.

The fact that we leave fingerprints everywhere is hardly relevant, considering the costs of retrieving and storing them en masse are astronomical.

The licence plates on our cars are out in the open for everyone to see, and yet when a private company collects them and makes a searchable database out of it -- with locations and timestamps -- making it possible for anyone with access to build traceable paths of all of our movements since forever, it results in people getting enraged, and in my opinion justifiably so.

   > US-issued visas are multiple entry for 10yrs

   > it's relatively not a hassle at all

Well, entering the US an average of 7.5 times each year is hardly usual, unless one's a Canadian living near the border and jumping to a Costco on the other side.

Before this change, my average time for EU immigration check was 10-20 min. After this change, it's 2-3 hours. Is that good or bad?

I don't care much about "verify that the passport is yours". For centuries, the person presenting the passport was supposed to be the owner of it, with their photo (aka "biometrics") as a proof. Comparing your passport picture with your face is what border controls have been doing since forever.

We're not talking about people who have an EU passport, we're talking about those who want to enter the EU with a non-EU passport. These people get fingerprinted on entry (and some of them on exit too) since 2025.

If you're an EU citizen, it could be that your wife has an EU residence permit. The rules for EU residents are different.

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.

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.

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.

Instead, the EU is going to collect the US nationals' fingerprints at the EU points of entry.

Ok, it could depend on the type of visa too. I only enter for tourism (B2 I think) and have never overstayed.

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.

... or to EU, or to UK, or to anywhere at all. Just stay at home.

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 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.

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.

Title a bit misleading: EU exempts all smartwatches (not just Apple Watch) and probably all wireless headphones (not just AirPods) as well:

    > The Commission is now adding six new product categories to the existing list of exemptions. This includes wearable devices such as smartwatches and fitness trackers, electric toys, and products within the scope of the ATEX Directive (equipment used in explosive atmospheres such as explosion-proof motors, sensors, pumps or forklift trucks).

is it enough to block all ads on tomshardware?

It doesn't work, as one can't control a wet screen with wet fingers.

When you want to film your kid jumping into a pool (from inside the pool), do you do it with your phone or with your DSLR?

There are about 1.5 million immigrants from Ukraine alone.

Yes, other sensationalised headlines exist and some of them get posted here, this is not the only one trying make a point which is not proven yet.

you could perhaps read the summary at the top of the article

I did.

“FTC” may not be independent anymore

It may, or it may not; we don't know. We don't know what EU Courts hold as a criterion for "independence," and we don't know what they will decide regarding that "independence" in light of the new fact that POTUS can fire its chief. People simply aren't good in reading the judges' minds, as evidenced by their going to courts -- if both sides could read minds, there wouldn't be any purpose in going to courts, after all. And don't underestimate the creativity of the courts -- they can align with one side, or the other, or produce an opinion completely different from both sides'.

I understand that the advocacy group in question considers this new fact as evidence that FTC is not independent anymore, but that doesn't matter; we need the courts' opinion, not my opinion or your opinion or the advocacy group's opinion. As stated, what we have in the article are predictions about future; I'm not saying these predictions are wrong and I'm not saying these predictions are right, I'm saying these are simply predictions and not facts.

I don't disagree with the linked-to analysis.

I meant that it's ok for you and me to disagree.

I don't know what your point is

My point is this: Shrems III may or may not be filed, if and when it's filed the relevant court may or may not decide to review it, if they decide to proceed they may reach many different conclusions, one of the possible outcomes being a blow-up in the EU-US data transfers. Then we will we be able, with the benefit of the hindsight, conclude that the SCOTUS decision in question indeed blew up the transfers.

But we're not there yet. At this point in time "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers" is a prediction about the future. It is however written in past perfect tense as if it's already happened. But what's happened is the SCOTUS decision only. Whether it will, or will not, blow up the data transfers — still remains to be seen.

I'm not saying that this will not happen; all I'm saying is that "blowing up of the data transfers" will happen when an actual court will decide that it's the consequence, not when some advocacy group will decide that it's the consequence.

It's ok to disagree. If the SCOTUS decision in question had any wording to the tune of "the EU-US data transfers need to stop," it would be fitting to say that the "US Supreme Court Just Blew Up EU-US Data Transfers." However it did not, so it wouldn't.

You could both be right: Shrems III could be in the works, and TLA could be presenting their legal analysis as an established fact.

In other words, (a) no, the "US Supreme Court" didn't "Just Bl[ow] Up EU-US Data Transfers" – there's nothing in the decision even remotely addressing the transfers (nor the EU!) – but (b) the situation might progress in that direction (or it might not.)

This might be a by-product of how you define what “Europe” is, though.

The Gentleman is a great starter watch, enjoy!

Reliable pretty much yes; serviceable -- depends on your definition of that. For about USD 200, Tissot will take care of your watch and send it back to you in a working condition. Note that they will probably replace the whole movement. FWIW, Seiko will probably do the same "service" on their 4R/6R movements which are their "workhorses."