How to avoid giving fingerprints for biometric visa?

[bototo]

Just curious. Saw the guidelines today and they say:

If a postal applicant fails to make arrangements to provide their biometrics their application will be rejected. If they fail to enrol their biometrics or refuse to provide their biometrics then their application to
the UK Border Agency may be rejected.

If a premium applicant refuses to provide their biometrics then their application to the UK Border Agency may be rejected.

(my bolding)

What's all this business about may be rejected? Under what conditions will they approve applications from those who refuse to provide biometrics? Are there valid grounds someone could refuse to provide these details?

(I'm not talking about those who may not have fingers/hands as it's covered separately in the guidelines)

I don't trust the UK government with data. The less they have the less they can scr*w up. If possible I'd prefer to not give them fingerprints.

[t-bag]

Why would you not want to give your FP anyways??? Done something wrong??

If found out, you'll be rejected no questions asked.

[bototo]

Why would you not want to give your FP anyways??? Done something wrong??

The why is explained in the OP.

I am a well respected member of society without so much as a speeding ticket to my name, not that it's any business of yours. I'm also a privacy advocate and actively involved in exposing government data breaches and their serious effects on hapless victims.

I do not take kindly to your insinuations. If you do not possess the intelligence/ability to respond to the question nor understand the ID theft risks behind government data breaches - a valid reason why one might be reluctant to trust the government with further data - I would appreciate if you avoided the thread rather cast aspersions on my character/activities.

[t-bag]

Thx for your response and sorry if you took my answer in an offensive way. Good luck for you visa application. It's true, the rules say "may". So my advise will be "take a chance and don't enrol" and see what it gives. But for an intelligent person, it definitely makes more sense to focus and spend their energy on getting the documents in order and follow the rules rather than trying to be picky on little details such as "may" or "may not". But that's just me : we're clearly different!!

[geriatrix]

The Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 -> Consequences of a failure to comply with a requirement of these Regulations
Amendments to the 2008 Regulations

The topic is bordering on "how not to meet a legal obligation" so, depending on how the discussion progresses, may not remain visible for long.

[bototo]

sushdmehta, I see your point. I hope you moderators view the thread in the spirit it was intended. I'm not looking to circumvent the law. I'm looking for possible reasons behind the ambiguous wording in the guidelines. It's a valid privacy related enquiry.

I've read the The Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 which say "These Regulations require certain persons subject to immigration control to apply for a biometric immigration document."

Para 4 covers the categories required under the Regulations to comply. Already settled ILR holders are not included in that list. It is therefore my suspicion that UKBA is using regulation creep to extract personal data to which they may not be legally entitled.

I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong.

[PaperPusher]

It has been amended:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012 ... 594_en.pdf

[mansoorash]

a valid reason why one might be reluctant to trust the government with further data.

If you are that much bothered; why not just go home??

[geriatrix]

Already settled ILR holders are not included in that list.

Ah! For once someone wants a law to be applied retrospectively! But when UKBA does so, everyone cries foul!! So, damned if they do, damned if they don't! There is always someone who will cry.

Another way to look at it - already ILR holders are exempt from submitting biometrics because, generally, there is no need for them to make an "immigration application" any more, and hence there is no biometric immigration document to be issued. But, under some circumstances (e.g. - lost passport), even "already ILR holders" need to make an immigration application (e.g. - NTL) and are required to submit biometrics.

It is therefore my suspicion that UKBA is using regulation creep to extract personal data to which they may not be legally entitled.

Doesn't the legislation make it "legally entitled"? If not, what is the law for, if not "regulation creep"?

[bototo]

Thanks PaperPusher, I'll check that out.

Already settled ILR holders are not included in that list.

Ah! For once someone wants a law to be applied retrospectively! But when UKBA does so, everyone cries foul!! So, damned if they do, damned if they don't!

I don't know who that someone is who wants the law to be applied "retrospectively", but if Parliament hasn't given organisations like UKBA certain power over a certain class of people - especially on snooping/privacy related matters - I would rather they didn't award themselves the power.

Like councils wanting powers for "national security/terrorist related" reasons and then using those powers to snoop on who is putting their dustbins out too early ( like the night before the weekly collection).

If these organisations are sloppy it doesn't compare with the sloppiness of some of the private companies they hand these powers over to. Incidences like this one in today's news happen regularly. But the privacy argument is a different one and ... to each his own. Feel free to give away as much data as you want to whomever you want. It is my right to be more discerning and to try to ascertain someone's legal right to the data before I hand it over.

[Casa]

I think this discussion has run its course.