(I consider your root comment take to be shallow and I've noted that clearly I'm not the only one who thinks so. You're free to ignore it.)

I imagine there were times in the past when one might not expect to have one's baggage searched at a border, and when the authorities in a given country began searching baggage, that would have been a bridge too far for some people.

I wouldn't expect to have to disrobe at the border to prove I wasn't carrying contraband, but I can't imagine why a country wouldn't be able to implement such a law if they so desired. The biometric "search" is considered much less intrusive than a strip search by many, though on the other hand, a strip search is merely embarrassing, while some folks might consider the examination of one's biometrics to be theft (although, of course, it is not actually theft).

I mean, really, the presumably peaceful gun-toting motorcyclist would have probably been turned away at the border, or worse. Whereas, on the other hand, the parent post did not imply that they would have been turned away (or worse) for having the "wrong shape" fingerprints. Unless, of course, those fingerprints indicated that the traveler was a convicted criminal on the run from that country's authorities. They're merely objecting to a form of data collection.

> Countries can make whatever restrictions they like; we don’t have to support them. That’s the power of choice. Has nothing to do with entitlement.

Indeed.