Concerns about the new fingerprinting policy

In the days since we announced our new fingerprinting policy we have received hundreds of e-mail messages from concerned world citizens. The purpose of this post is to create a FAQ that will respond to these concerns in a way that will make all of us feel better about the policy. (At the GNU Public Dictatorship we are nothing if not concerned with our supporters' feelings).

Q. Who will have to be fingerprinted weekly?
A. Employees and volunteers of the GNU Public Dictatorship. This includes members of the Board of Dictators, GPD Counts, and all staff (paid or volunteer) at local GPD offices. This does not include volunteers who use less formal means to advance our cause. The rule of thumb (or index fingers?) is that if you regularly visit a GPD facility you will probably be fingerprinted weekly.

Q. What about people who mutilate their fingers in order to fool you?
A. There a number of methods that have been used to circumvent fingerprinting checks, ranging from this simple method to this more complex method. These methods, however, are more useful for disguising one's true identity (creating false negatives) and not for masquerading as another individual (creating false positives). Our fingerprinting departments have been instructed to immediately detain any individuals with unrecognized or non-existent prints, so we don't believe there is any danger of another Quisling Incident.

Q. Isn't this a violation of civil liberties?
A. We don't think so. In order to be a violation of civil liberties, (1) the right to not be fingerprinted would have to be enshrined in some sort of legal framework and (2) the policy would have to require that people who didn't sign up to be fingerprinted are forced to be fingerprinted. All of our employees and volunteers have signed waivers allowing us to do to them whatever we, the Board of Dictators, feel necessary while they are working with us.

Q. Isn't the likelihood of a masquerade attack low enough that this policy merely causes confusion and delay?
A. We hope so (well, not the confusion and delay), and we believe instituting the policy will discourage the attempt in all but the most determined individuals. As to the confusion and delay, we commissioned a study which concluded that there would be at most a 0.01% increase in confusion and no more than 0.05% increase in delay.

These were by far the most frequently asked questions, and we hope that our answers have assuaged your doubts. Thanks for your support!