View Full Version : Fingerprints
JimBob
28th June 2007, 09:52
The latest bright idea from the police hierarchy to keep us safe from ourselves is to fingerprint everyone who is detained. I dont know what the legal definition of detained is but I assume it would include situations where the police require something of you. eg, breath testing, traffic tickets, wof check, etc.
New technology means a small handheld fingerprinter can take your fingerprints, transmit them to the national fingerprint server quicker than you can say mickey mouse into the breath test machine, and then compare and save in a wink
I wholeheartedly agree with this with one proviso
They should only do it to criminals. I'm not a criminal so they dont need mine.
Not sure about the rest of you tho
why would you mind? got something to hide? :lol:
hellnback
28th June 2007, 10:32
Just another form of identification as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't care if they took a DNA sample while they're there.
Like Yod said, if you got nothing to hide....
janno
28th June 2007, 10:43
Wouldn't worry me.
Unless of course sometime in the future our bank accounts etc were accessed by high tech individual recognition methods, like, umm . . . fingerprints . . . :shit:
JimBob
28th June 2007, 10:44
why would you mind? got something to hide? :lol:
Thats the point, I dont have anything to hide so why would they need mine?
Obviously if you think you may commit a criminal offence some time in the future by all means give them your fingerprints (dna as well if you like) so that they can catch you.
As for identification I know who I am so all they have to do is ask.
Thats the point, I dont have anything to hide so why would they need mine?
Obviously if you think you may commit a criminal offence some time in the future by all means give them your fingerprints (dna as well if you like) so that they can catch you.
As for identification I know who I am so all they have to do is ask.
umm yeah...u kinda missing the point there mate.
the problem is, as much of a bloody top bloke as I'm sure you are, criminals have a tendency to lie to Mr Plod, so it's a little difficult for Mr Plod to tell whether you have anything to hide based purely on your word.....
James Deuce
28th June 2007, 10:49
why would you mind? got something to hide? :lol:
Aha!
That is trotted out by conservative law abiding "citizens" every time basic human rights are removed.
It's not the fact that you have nothing to hide that should be determining whether they are allowed to do this.
The NZ Police can already detain you without suspicion. Remember - a check point is detaining you from proceeding about your lawful business. Most Police Forces with a basis in upholding the freedom of the people they protect need to suspect you of an actual crime before they can stop you, and be able to prove that they had reason to suspect you of a crime in a court of law.
Removing rights of movement and privacy are the first steps in the establishment of every totalitarian state. The changes are ALWAYS welcomed by those with nothing to hide. These laws are always ultimately used to make people who ask difficult questions disappear.
Every single country where this type of thing has happened has been at the start of a long nasty downward spiral.
Read your history and try to understand it. Every Government that attempts to limit the freedom of movement and gather and store information about its citizens has passed a point of no return.
Albino
28th June 2007, 10:53
From the TVNV website. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/1204549
Police may soon be able to fingerprint anyone, anywhere, even if they have not been arrested.
Personally I am not happy being stopped by a cop just so they can ID me.
I am happy to put up with having to stop for breath testing as these serve a purpose in removing real and present dangers off the road, and saving lives.
Stopping innocent civilians to obtain ID sounds like a nazi thing. My grandfather died protecting our freedoms from this crap.
Aha!
That is trotted out by conservative law abiding "citizens" every time basic human rights are removed.
It's not the fact that you have nothing to hide that should be determining whether they are allowed to do this.
The NZ Police can already detain you without suspicion. Remember - a check point is detaining you from proceeding about your lawful business. Most Police Forces with a basis in upholding the freedom of the people they protect need to suspect you of an actual crime before they can stop you, and be able to prove that they had reason to suspect you of a crime in a court of law.
Removing rights of movement and privacy are the first steps in the establishment of every totalitarian state. The changes are ALWAYS welcomed by those with nothing to hide. These laws are always ultimately used to make people who ask difficult questions disappear.
Every single country where this type of thing has happened has been at the start of a long nasty downward spiral.
Read your history and try to understand it. Every Government that attempts to limit the freedom of movement and gather and store information about its citizens has passed a point of no return.
:laugh: relax Jim - i'm about the biggest liberal leftie there is mate - but we still need to find a happy medium between complete totalitarianism (which I think we probably haven't quite got to yet) and complete anarchy
given that fingerprinting has been around for a couple of years now, I personally feel pretty comfortable with this new system. That, and I've got nothing to hide
keep your friends close and your enemies even closer muahahahaha.....
James Deuce
28th June 2007, 11:00
Breath testing has done nothing to remove recidivist drunken drivers from our roads. Over arching methods of Policing that treat all citizens as criminals are inherently repugnant.
Check points do not save lives. There is NO way to prove that they do.
Fingerprinting every NZ citizen will not reduce crime.
Laugh all you want. When you get that RFI chip embedded in your neck and you are blocked from public toilets, gas stations, and movie theatres because you shouted at your spouse before you went to work, remember you were warned.
Governments should not be allowed to create laws that reduce the rights of every citizen to address issues that involve a very small minority of the population and we should not be allowing them to do this to us. They are our servants. Not our leaders, not our bosses, not our rulers.
civil
28th June 2007, 11:09
I wholeheartedly agree with this with one proviso
They should only do it to criminals. I'm not a criminal so they dont need mine.
However you need to realsie that by 'Driving' you are doing a criminal act, otherwise you would not need a 'licence' now would you?
LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
So when you get 'detained' at the side of the road for what ever reason and officer plod (acting in his/her role as a 'Police Officer' as opposed to 'Peace Officer' (they are different!), a.k.a you are being 'arrested' (as you consider you are not free to leave. Just try and leave and see what happens!)), asks to see your 'Drivers Licence', officer plod is doing two things;
1. confirming you are within his jurisdiction as a 'Police Officer', and
2. confirming you are doing a criminal activity. .......... All be it with authority to do so.
.......... Finger Print please you GUILTY CRIMINAL .......:gob:
........... and you thought you were innocent ...........
janno
28th June 2007, 11:12
The latest thing in Brisbane is coppers pulling over sportsbike riders and . . . photographing bike and rider "to build a database".
Because they can.
Not for speeding, not for nuffink.
Hope you guys don't have that in NZ?
Apparently it's not illegal. Scary, huh? :gob:
Paul in NZ
28th June 2007, 11:16
At this stage it's more a resourcing / cost thing. There is a huge amount of time and money wasted by Police confirming people are who they say they are and not their cousin etc. Identity theft is not just someone swiping your pin number.
Yeah - it's a pain in the arse but it also speeds up crime detection and removes a lot of wanted crims from the street. Many people don't play by the rules of give a rats arse about you, your family or anyone else they hurt along the way and they will go to great lengths to disguise their identity.
If anyones got a better way of making sure you are who you say you are I'm all ears!
Just introducing the new live scan technology has caught a bunch of very bad people out when they were pulled for minor offences and lied about who they were. We are talking serious assaults, sexual assualts etc etc not little Johnnie nicking off with the milk money..
Breath testing has done nothing to remove recidivist drunken drivers from our roads. Over arching methods of Policing that treat all citizens as criminals are inherently repugnant.
Check points do not save lives. There is NO way to prove that they do.
Check points CATCH drunk drivers, recidivist or not - do you see no point in that?
Fingerprinting every NZ citizen will not reduce crime.
in actual fact it probably will - we simply can't tell because of the difficulty in accurately measuring it
Laugh all you want. When you get that RFI chip embedded in your neck and you are blocked from public toilets, gas stations, and movie theatres because you shouted at your spouse before you went to work, remember you were warned.
btw - i wasn't laughing at ya mate, it's just that i am about as far from being a right wing conservative as you'll get
Governments should not be allowed to create laws that reduce the rights of every citizen to address issues that involve a very small minority of the population and we should not be allowing them to do this to us. They are our servants. Not our leaders, not our bosses, not our rulers.
how does fingerprinting reduce my rights? because they now know what the ends of my fingers look like? seriously, why would you care?
IF this was the prequel to some huge conspiratorial plan to gain societal control within our nation then yeah, ok, lets say no, but since I'm reasonably confident it's not.....
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 11:21
The NZ Police can already detain you without suspicion. Remember - a check point is detaining you from proceeding about your lawful business. Most Police Forces with a basis in upholding the freedom of the people they protect need to suspect you of an actual crime before they can stop you, and be able to prove that they had reason to suspect you of a crime in a court of law.
That's pretty misleading. Police all around the world can stop people on traffic enforcement matters, (as in the check point you mentioned) without requiring suspicion of any other criminal activity in order to lawfully carry out that stop. The difference is when you are stopping people with the express intention of carrying out a search for stolen property, drugs, guns etc. In those situations there are clear statutory obligations that cover the police actions, ("probable cause" for those of you who watch too much seppo TV).
civil
28th June 2007, 11:22
IF this was the prequel to some huge conspiratorial plan to gain societal control within our nation then yeah, ok, lets say no, but since I'm reasonably confident it's not.....
TOO LATE !!!!!!
I didn't see it either, until the trees were pointed out to me, then I could see the woods.
TOO LATE !!!!!!
I didn't see it either, until the trees were pointed out to me, then I could see the woods.
really? bugger....
ahwell...as long as i get to keep my bike im ok with it....:laugh:
civil
28th June 2007, 11:28
Police all around the world can stop people on traffic enforcement matters, (as in the check point you mentioned) without requiring suspicion of any other criminal activity in order to lawfully carry out that stop.
Not beacuse they are lawfully going about their business, but becuase you suspect criminal activity. This why you ask for their 'Drivers Licence'.
civil
28th June 2007, 11:32
ahwell...as long as i get to keep my bike im ok with it....:laugh:
Most people are, that is why it continues the way it has for the last few hundred years. Back when people were free (to take responsibility for themselves).
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 11:32
Not beacuse they are lawfully going about their business, but becuase you suspect criminal activity. This why you ask for their 'Drivers Licence'.
No dumbarse, because the Land Transport Act requires the driver to produce it.
Mr Merde
28th June 2007, 11:35
.......
Governments should not be allowed to create laws that reduce the rights of every citizen to address issues that involve a very small minority of the population and we should not be allowing them to do this to us. They are our servants. Not our leaders, not our bosses, not our rulers.
Unfortunately those persons think that they are all of the above highlighted. They think they have the moral right to tell each and everyone of us how to live our lives.
They have this delusion due to the fact that they were elected or appointed (MMP) and therefore they must be what the people want. They are not accountable to us until the next round of so called elections, where they will lie, slander, promise and fling mud in an attempt to retain power.
Look at the latest from parliament. The press is no longer allowed to show them behaving like children. Why? Because it would lower public opinion of them, as though it can be any lower than it already is.
We, myself included, are a nation of sheep. We blindly follow what these people say and if for some reason we disagree those in power quickly find some emmotive subject to divert our interest elsewhere.
All polititians are, by their very nature of wishing to be such, corrupt and not fit. Plato's idea not mine, though I have worded it differently.
I for one would be horror struck if we were all to be fingerprinted for no reason other than the fact that we may commit a crime in the future. It is a blatant disregard for my basic human rights and smacks of a government and its departments totally out of tune with those they are supposed to SERVE.
Mr :shit:
civil
28th June 2007, 11:38
No dumbarse, because the Land Transport Act requires the driver to produce it.
That is right, the authority which gives you permission to carry out the otherwise unlawful activity (Driving), requires you to carrly the said authority (Drivers Licence).
Why the offence? Bullies move through this phase before violence when their apparent authority is confronted. Your not a bully are you?
u4ea
28th June 2007, 11:40
Most people are, that is why it continues the way it has for the last few hundred years. Back when people were free (to take responsibility for themselves).
Ive got nothing to hide but taking away my right to go about my business under suspician just sux the big kumera!!Bring back Robin Hood.....
Lissa
28th June 2007, 11:43
I agree with Jim2 and Mr Merde...The government is telling us how to discipline our children, and now they want my fingerprints. No way, if I want them to have my fingerprints I would have to grant permission. Its my fingers, and how on earth would they make us?
Its not a case of if I havent done anything wrong what have I got to hide. You could say that about anything... like bugging our cellphones, listening in on our conversations.. if you have nothing to hide it shouldnt bother you, but it would right! Its an invasion of privacy.
Paul in NZ
28th June 2007, 11:44
That is right, the authority which gives you permission to carry out the otherwise unlawful activity (Driving), requires you to carrly the said authority (Drivers Licence).
Why the offence? Bullies move through this phase before violence when their apparent authority is confronted. Your not a bully are you?
Actually - why not remove all Police powers and sack the lot of them. We should all take personal responsibility for all our actions....
oldrider
28th June 2007, 11:47
The latest bright idea from the police hierarchy to keep us safe from ourselves is to fingerprint everyone who is detained. I dont know what the legal definition of detained is but I assume it would include situations where the police require something of you. eg, breath testing, traffic tickets, wof check, etc.
New technology means a small handheld fingerprinter can take your fingerprints, transmit them to the national fingerprint server quicker than you can say mickey mouse into the breath test machine, and then compare and save in a wink
I wholeheartedly agree with this with one proviso
They should only do it to criminals. I'm not a criminal so they dont need mine.
Not sure about the rest of you tho
I am not a criminal either but they have had mine (finger prints and two lovely photos) since way back in the early sixties.
Sometimes I feel annoyed that they have them but I haven't noticed it to be any problem, well, YET! :shit: John.
civil
28th June 2007, 11:51
...... may commit a crime in the future. It is a blatant disregard for my basic human rights and smacks of a government and its departments totally out of tune with those they are supposed to SERVE.
Mr :shit:
It is not a matter of MAY COMMIT A CRIME, but the fact you ARE COMMITTING A CRIME, by 'Driving'.
Governments do not give us our human rights. They can / do / have taken your rights. Then after taking them (for all sorts of good reasons mind you), without your objection (hence they have your permission to do so), they give you back various rights to do stuff that they have deemed to be otherwise ilegal activity. He who gives, can take back from you.
Welcome to the world we live in.
By not studing history we will not only make the same mistakes, but also not know where we are today!
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 11:52
That is right, the authority which gives you permission to carry out the otherwise unlawful activity (Driving), requires you to carrly the said authority (Drivers Licence).
Why the offence? Bullies move through this phase before violence when their apparent authority is confronted. Your not a bully are you?
I'm not offended, but I do have a low idiot tolerance. You've just triggered an episode.
ZeroIndex
28th June 2007, 11:53
They should do the whole fingerprinty thing at nightclubs... therefore you wouldn't need stamps and it would make everyones lives easier... people that are old enough to get into clubs won't be asked for ID, and people that are too young can receive quick and painful kicks to the shins by the security guards for being dumb and trying to get into a place that they shouldn't be trying to get into...
I'm gonna anticipate this move, and start thinking up ideas to make fake fingerprints that actually match the national database :p
JimBob
28th June 2007, 11:55
umm yeah...u kinda missing the point there mate.
the problem is, as much of a bloody top bloke as I'm sure you are, criminals have a tendency to lie to Mr Plod, so it's a little difficult for Mr Plod to tell whether you have anything to hide based purely on your word.....
Thats why the proviso that they do it to criminals. But if others are happy to do it go for your life. I am only saying its not for me.
Seriously though being on a database doesnt worry me in itself.
Its listening to the bullshit the bureaucrats come out with to justify their actions and how gullible NZers are when they believe a lot of this rubbish.
And the basic tactic is scaremongering, "if you are against it you must have something to hide" and so it follows that if you have nothing to hide you will comply.
I should be able to make my own decisions.
As a nation we are too comfortable, and as people we are a nation of sheep who do what we are told, when we are told. Thats probably why we do well overseas because we cut loose.
A simple thing is a queue, we love to stand in a line and be quiet.
How long would you sit at a red light before thinking for yourself?
Still not a bad country to live in though.
civil
28th June 2007, 12:01
I'm not offended, but I do have a low idiot tolerance. You've just triggered an episode.
More offence? Warning to all those around this bully, violence is about to occur.
Offence is often the responce of those will low mental ability to logical argument.
civil
28th June 2007, 12:06
The government is telling us how to discipline our children.
Dont get me started on children and why / how the goverment can dictate how we raise our children.
REGISTER, common law. The certificate of registry granted to the person or persons entitled thereto, by the collector of the district, comprehending the port to which any ship or vessel shall belong; more properly, the registry itself. For the form, requisites, &c. of certificate of registry
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Ask why the goverment requires / asks us to REGISTER our children's BIRTH, and what we are saying about who they (our children) belong to in so doing?
MWVT
28th June 2007, 12:10
I have nothing to hide (ok, well not much) under our CURRENT laws.
I'm not that keen on making wild predictions under our FUTURE ones.
I grates with me a little when i'm pulled over at a breath test point, when there was no reason to suspect i was driving under the influence (driving normally, not throwing bottles at the cops etc). But on the other hand, after losing a couple of friends to drink drivers randomly taking them out, i understand the reasoning, and i grin and bear it (helps if they are polite.... which the vast majority are).
Taking my fingerprints..... is there a reason to suspect i have commited a crime (other than i am alive, and some alive people commit crime).
Without lending my voice to the conspicary choir, limits on the power of government (and police) are there for a reason.... eroding those limits need very careful consideration. The general principle of the state not detaining a person (or requiring them to prove their innocence) without some reason to believe they may have commited a crime, is one i'm very glad we (largely) live under.
So my vote, thumbs down on the fingerprinting.
MWVT
28th June 2007, 12:14
That's pretty misleading. Police all around the world can stop people on traffic enforcement matters, (as in the check point you mentioned) without requiring suspicion of any other criminal activity in order to lawfully carry out that stop. The difference is when you are stopping people with the express intention of carrying out a search for stolen property, drugs, guns etc. In those situations there are clear statutory obligations that cover the police actions, ("probable cause" for those of you who watch too much seppo TV).
Hey Spud,
I agree that it was misleading. Do you believe traffic should be different? (obviously it is in almost all countries), we don't allow random searches of our houses, why random searches on our licenses.
Matt
Paul in NZ
28th June 2007, 12:29
FFS - think about it....
They take a print in a roadside reader... They may not even store that print for future use BUT it will be compared against the database to see if it matches the details you gave (assuming they have a print already) and against a database of unsolved crimes etc.
You would be amazed how many cold cases are solved that way and thats a good thing!
Cheers
more_fasterer
28th June 2007, 12:30
IMO it doesn't seem that different to the current climate. Examples:
- When I was 11 two nice policemen came to our school and talked to our class about catching those nasty criminals. Then they started talking about identification etc and said "lets take everyone's fingerprints, for fun!"
They recorded these with our full names & dates of birth... I would be very surprised if these aren't in the database.
- Around 10 years ago, my Mum's car was broken into. The police fingerprinted the car and I had to submit my fingerprints to them as I had used the car recently. That would mean my fingerprints are definitely recorded in the database.
I don't have any qualms about the second point as my prints were recorded to help solve a crime - maybe I would've taken issue with it if I had an interest in doing illegal things (other than committing speed limit murder). The first raises a few questions though.
Sanx
28th June 2007, 12:34
I don't mind the drink/drive checkpoints. They don't check licences, they just check if you're drunk. They ask for your name and address, sure, but that's only because it's something that everyone knows and takes long enough to say in order for the machines to get their sample.
However, I would object strenuously to any move to bring in fingerprinting when arrested. Or, as is the case in the UK, compulsory DNA testing when arrested. When someone is convicted of a crime, they forfeit basic human rights such as a right to privacy and freedom of movement. The state can then require fingerprints and DNA sampling should it require.
But to require them when arrested is not on. People get arrested and released without charge all the time. They haven't committed and offence (or at least, haven't been convicted) and they have not forfeited any basic human rights. There is no just cause for taking that person's fingerprints or DNA.
If you're arrested in the UK for any reason they will take your fingerprints and a DNA sample. Even if you are later released because the Police are satisfied that you have been falsely arrested, they will not destroy the data they've collected. the Association of Chief Police Officers have seriously suggested that all children should be DNA sampled at birth. When you now apply for a passport in the UK, you have to give your fingerprints. the UK is rapidly turning into a surveillance state; cameras everywhere. The government has used fear, uncertainty, doubt and the ever-present spectre of 'terrorism' in order to continually erode basic civil liberties.
Next will come the introduction of 'voluntary' ID cards. Except you'll need them for accessing health care or any government service. So everyone will need them. When they've achieved sufficient critical mass, they'll make them compulsory. Then they'll make it compulsory to carry with you at all times. Then they'll make it an arrestable offence not to carry it.
It's the start of a long slippery slope and should be opposed at all costs, whether you have anything to hide or not. 'Cos one day, further down that slippery slope, they'll deprive you of a civil liberty that you do care about...
more_fasterer
28th June 2007, 12:40
Next will come the introduction of 'voluntary' ID cards. Except you'll need them for accessing health care or any government service. So everyone will need them. When they've achieved sufficient critical mass, they'll make them compulsory. Then they'll make it compulsory to carry with you at all times. Then they'll make it an arrestable offence not to carry it.
I've already got one of them ID cards... it's got "New Zealand Driver License" printed at the top :rolleyes:
Sanx
28th June 2007, 12:52
I've already got one of them ID cards... it's got "New Zealand Driver License" printed at the top :rolleyes:
That's not an ID card. It doesn't have your fingerprints on it. You don't have to have it with you at all times (only when driving). Driving is not a civil liberty or human right, it's a privilege. There's a distinction.
Krusti
28th June 2007, 13:02
This infringement on my personal freedom is why I have just applied for a job in Pakistan..........:yes: :rofl:
JimBob
28th June 2007, 13:02
Hey Spud,
I agree that it was misleading. Do you believe traffic should be different? (obviously it is in almost all countries), we don't allow random searches of our houses, why random searches on our licenses.
Matt
Why not? I am sure if a street was locked down and homes and people were searched they would find some lawbreakers. Even if its just Joe who didnt get a permit for his gazebo. Of course if you have something to hide etc etc
Random breath testing, random drug testing,(another proposal. Apparently the technology is available to incorporate it with roadside breath testing) random vehicle searches, video recording of protesters, etc etc are nothing more than fishing expeditions. The next step is random property searches. And the same old BS is trotted out "if we do this you will be safer" and always the inference that the only people who dont want it are criminals and worse still leftie civil libertarians
Just because it is lawful doesnt make it right.
Albino
28th June 2007, 13:08
People who dont want this dont understand what we are asking for. We are asking for the power that when we stop someone in the street or pull them over to have them put their thumb on a PDA like device. This is then scanned through the Police database for anyone known to us.
Why are you stopping them on the street, or pulling them over if they haven't committed an offence?
civil
28th June 2007, 13:11
Driving is not a civil liberty or human right, it's a privilege. There's a distinction.
Since when did the freedom of movement or travelling become a privilege?
Thats right when we got a licence to do it and called it Driving. All for the best of good reasons mind you, as of-course we had nothing to hide.
JimBob
28th June 2007, 13:15
FFS - think about it....
They take a print in a roadside reader... They may not even store that print for future use BUT it will be compared against the database to see if it matches the details you gave (assuming they have a print already) and against a database of unsolved crimes etc.
You would be amazed how many cold cases are solved that way and thats a good thing!
Cheers
My emphasis
Bit naive arent you?
And how many "cold cases" are solved this way?
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 13:17
More offence? Warning to all those around this bully, violence is about to occur.
Offence is often the responce of those will low mental ability to logical argument.
Suggesting that actual physical violence can occur across the interweb shows that you have the mental capacity of a paper cup. But just so you aren't completely disappointed, here's a virtual poke in the eye. :Pokey:
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 13:23
Hey Spud,
I agree that it was misleading. Do you believe traffic should be different? (obviously it is in almost all countries), we don't allow random searches of our houses, why random searches on our licenses.
Matt
You are required to hold a licence in order to be permitted to drive on a public road. In policing the national roads, how are the police meant to be able to determine who is and who isn't a legitimate road user without being able to inspect the licence.
Equally you are required to hold a firearms licence before you can own or purchase a firearm or ammunition. Is it unreasonable for retailers to require a firearms licence holder to produce their licence for inspection when purchasing guns or ammo?
Patrick
28th June 2007, 13:26
As for identification I know who I am so all they have to do is ask.
Not everyone is as honest as you JimBob...
Personally I am not happy being stopped by a cop just so they can ID me.
I have never stopped anyone, "just so I can ID" them... unless they have nice tits...:dodge:
The latest thing in Brisbane is coppers pulling over sportsbike riders and . . . photographing bike and rider "to build a database".
Would have something to do with those who engage in "runners," something that is even supported by some on here...
They take a print in a roadside reader... They may not even store that print for future use BUT it will be compared against the database to see if it matches the details you gave (assuming they have a print already) and against a database of unsolved crimes etc.
You would be amazed how many cold cases are solved that way and thats a good thing!
Cheers
Well said Paul in NZ. Sums it up. It is a scan, not a print taker or storer. It checks the database (does not store it in there) and the data base is of prints we already have, and presto... 1 x rapist found, 1 x burglar found, 1 x wanted P head found, 1 x disqualified driver found... whatever...
Remember the cop recruit who was IDed by his prints???
[QUOTE=more_fasterer;1112436"lets take everyone's fingerprints, for fun!"
They recorded these with our full names & dates of birth... I would be very surprised if these aren't in the database.
- Around 10 years ago, my Mum's car was broken into. The police fingerprinted the car and I had to submit my fingerprints to them as I had used the car recently. That would mean my fingerprints are definitely recorded in the database.[/QUOTE]
Wrong on both counts... the kiddies prints were obtained unlawfully and without informed consent and without consent of the oparents... they will be gone!
The second, the "elimination" prints are only used for comparison to prints located at a crime scene to remove your prints from the suspect/offender list only. Prints found, confirmed as yours, all are disposed. Prints confirmed as not yours, are loaded and looked for... at the roadside in the not too distant future by the looks of it... to find the crook who ripped you off.
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 13:27
Since when did the freedom of movement or travelling become a privilege?
Thats right when we got a licence to do it and called it Driving. All for the best of good reasons mind you, as of-course we had nothing to hide.
You can move as much as like without holding a driver licence, just not in a motor vehicle.
Patrick
28th June 2007, 13:29
Why are you stopping them on the street, or pulling them over if they haven't committed an offence?
You develop a "sense...." in fairly quick time... and you would be surprised just how damned accurate this sense is...
A little hard to put into words, but if you think I am going to be stopping and searching your 93 year old grandma or people leaving the church in Sunday for example, think again... There are many many "reasons" but as they are State Secrets, if I tell ya, I'll have to kill ya....
davereid
28th June 2007, 13:29
Merely the tools of tyranny being forced on us in the name of "public safety".
The fools and sheep will accept it, the fooled will promote it.
The arguments are old, and at the end, freedoms lost can be regained only with blood.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
u4ea
28th June 2007, 13:29
That's not an ID card. It doesn't have your fingerprints on it. You don't have to have it with you at all times (only when driving). Driving is not a civil liberty or human right, it's a privilege. There's a distinction.
I heard the theory that our drivers liscence has a chip in it.Also if you look on the back at those lines are they an actual replica of your iris??????I heard if you put in in the microwave it will scramble their data!!!!!!!
civil
28th June 2007, 13:31
The problem is that heaps of cops know hes giving false details and he probably has warrant or is wanted for something but they cant do anything about it.
You mean he is wanted for the horrendous crime of say being a terrorist ?
And then you find that next week the definition of a terrorist is changed to include someone who displays a non-flattering image of a politician, or has been report to have smacked his children, or not paid child support, or behind in paying this GST taxes, or was born a Jew / Black / suzuki rider etc. This could never happen, could it?
civil
28th June 2007, 13:46
Tell me where did you get a terrorist from?
I got terrorist from it's common emotive use to instill fear into people for the purpose of getting them to give up their freedom for yet more state control.
If you dont like that word then use the one your are suggesting, warrent.
"There just might be a warrent out for the their arrest for the horrendous crime of having been seen riding a honda/smacking/taking photos whatever !!!!" :gob:
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 13:55
I got terrorist from it's common emotive use to instill fear into people for the purpose of getting them to give up their freedom for yet more state control.
If you dont like that word then use the one your are suggesting, warrent.
"There just might be a warrent out for the their arrest for the horrendous crime of having been seen riding a honda/smacking/taking photos whatever !!!!" :gob:
Good grief, what is about KB that seems to attract a brand new village idiot about every six months or so?
civil
28th June 2007, 13:55
You can move as much as like without holding a driver licence, just not in a motor vehicle.
Why? Ever asked how and when did the state get control over the mode of transport that you use and so restricts your freedom of movement? I am sure it was for a good reason.
Do you know what limitations are placed upon that restriction or control?
I am sure that if we read all the Statues and Acts and Regulations we could find out, but that would come at a significant personal cost. Easyer to just do want we are told, rather than stand up for your rights.
If you do not know your rights and how to get them, then it is the same as if you don't have them.
JimBob
28th June 2007, 14:01
People who dont want this dont understand what we are asking for. We are asking for the power that when we stop someone in the street or pull them over to have them put their thumb on a PDA like device. This is then scanned through the Police database for anyone known to us.
The main reason for this is that People dont have to give us their details unless its for a specific offence or for a traffic matter (go figure right?!).
The problem is that heaps of gang members and other criminals will give you a made up name on the side of the street and it say that they dont have a licence or a criminal record. They know that the name doesnt exists but we have no way of proving that.
You will try and gather as much information as possible (asking to look in their pockets, nearby vehicles, associates etc etc) but at times your grasping at straws to get an identification unless you see an offence you can arrest them under.
The problem is that heaps of cops know hes giving false details and he probably has warrant or is wanted for something but they cant do anything about it.
The media has turned this around and i note that the tv3 pole says "should police be able to take your fingerprints without arresting you" which is bullshit and they know it. Fucking media.
I appreciate and understand what you are trying to do. But sooner or later this will be applied to otherwise law-abiding citizens. Sooner or later I will be treated the same as that gang member. Why should I be?
Bit like the Taser trial. "it will be used as an alternative to deadly force" -my words but that was how it was sold to the public.
9mths from Sep 06 100 incidents, 15 discharges(euphemism for sticking someone), does that mean that without the Taser there would have been 15 people shot by Police? Shouldnt think so but it does show that you start out with a Noble Cause and then expand it from there. Fingerprinting, dna, id cards, rfi, will be exactly the same.
And I do know what its like to operate with one arm tied behind my back so I do sympathise.
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 14:03
I am sure that if we read all the Statues and Acts and Regulations we could find out, but that would come at a significant personal cost.
Why don't you go and have a real LONG read of them and then report back to us with your findings.
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.legislation.co.nz/
Unfortunately there aren't any forums there for you to post on but here's a link that contains a forum occupied by people of similar intellect to yourself.
http://www.hoodackey.co.nz/
Enjoy!
civil
28th June 2007, 14:06
"Warrant" not a "Warrent" Applogies, My spelling is not up to the standard of Police recruits. Or is it?
saying that Police liken people who have warrant to terrorists is ridiculous.
You mean like that guy who was shot dead in England for running to catch his train with a back pack and who the Police thought was a terrorist?
Or those held without being charged in guantanamo bay?
But then good old NZ is a much more civilised counrty than those ones, and we can trust our police force more than those ones!!! It's not like our police go about raping woman and looking at kiddy porn or anything!
civil
28th June 2007, 14:12
Why don't you go and have a real LONG read of them and then report back to us with your findings.
Here's a good place to start:
Thanks that where I did look, and this is what I found. "You and collectively "we", act in ignorance.
JimBob. You are right on the money.
spudchucka
28th June 2007, 14:19
Thanks that where I did look, and this is what I found. "You and collectively "we", act in ignorance.
Perhaps you should try typing your posts in Word and using the spell & grammar check first so they at least make some sense.
MisterD
28th June 2007, 15:05
Aha!
That is trotted out by conservative law abiding "citizens" every time basic human rights are removed.
It's not the fact that you have nothing to hide that should be determining whether they are allowed to do this.
..and in response the standard civil liberties clap trap.
Once upon a time people lived in small communities where everyone knew who everyone else was, this is just technology making the same instant identification possible again. I don't have any issue with that.
scumdog
28th June 2007, 17:47
umm yeah...u kinda missing the point there mate.
the problem is, as much of a bloody top bloke as I'm sure you are, criminals have a tendency to lie to Mr Plod, so it's a little difficult for Mr Plod to tell whether you have anything to hide based purely on your word.....
Eggs-Zachary!
Like last week:
"Got a licence?"
"Yep, not on me though"
"OK, give me your name and date of birth"
(Gives the above and comes back as having a licence)
"So you got any ID to show me who you are?"
"Nah man, sorry"
Long story short got a mate to turn up with a computer photo of the person whose details I had and it was no match at all and asking what Court convictions he had he had no idea - turns out he was disqualified (4th time) and a drug using burglar from Hawkes bay.
scumdog
28th June 2007, 17:53
I appreciate and understand what you are trying to do. But sooner or later this will be applied to otherwise law-abiding citizens. Sooner or later I will be treated the same as that gang member. Why should I be?
Bit like the Taser trial. "it will be used as an alternative to deadly force" -my words but that was how it was sold to the public.
9mths from Sep 06 100 incidents, 15 discharges(euphemism for sticking someone), does that mean that without the Taser there would have been 15 people shot by Police? Shouldnt think so but it does show that you start out with a Noble Cause and then expand it from there. Fingerprinting, dna, id cards, rfi, will be exactly the same.
And I do know what its like to operate with one arm tied behind my back so I do sympathise.
So how would YOU suggest the Taser subject be controlled otherwise???
If there were not so many liars out there the portable fingerprinting would not be needed.
scumdog
28th June 2007, 17:55
Breath testing has done nothing to remove recidivist drunken drivers from our roads. Over arching methods of Policing that treat all citizens as criminals are inherently repugnant.
Check points do not save lives. There is NO way to prove that they do.
Fingerprinting every NZ citizen will not reduce crime.
Laugh all you want. When you get that RFI chip embedded in your neck and you are blocked from public toilets, gas stations, and movie theatres because you shouted at your spouse before you went to work, remember you were warned.
Governments should not be allowed to create laws that reduce the rights of every citizen to address issues that involve a very small minority of the population and we should not be allowing them to do this to us. They are our servants. Not our leaders, not our bosses, not our rulers.
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"!!
scumdog
28th June 2007, 18:00
However you need to realsie that by 'Driving' you are doing a criminal act, otherwise you would not need a 'licence' now would you?......
You dumb fucking arse - you would be a criminal if you DIDN'T have a licence!!
How the hell is driving a criminal act???:shit:
BTW Top troll laddie!!!
scumdog
28th June 2007, 18:06
Why are you stopping them on the street, or pulling them over if they haven't committed an offence?
Where did he say they hadn't committed an offence???
Sheesh, this thread has really raked in it's full quote of dumb-arse comments and retard posters, I'm in stitches, keep 'em coming!!:Punk:
scumdog
28th June 2007, 18:09
Good grief, what is about KB that seems to attract a brand new village idiot about every six months or so?
Aw c'mon guy, what you got against this village??
Hitcher
28th June 2007, 18:57
The media has turned this around and i note that the tv3 pole says "should police be able to take your fingerprints without arresting you" which is bullshit and they know it. Fucking media.
The Police shouldn't be able to take your fingerprints without arresting you. What's next, having one's own personal copper friend who goes everywhere with one just in case one gets some sort of criminal urge?
JimBob
28th June 2007, 19:01
So how would YOU suggest the Taser subject be controlled otherwise???
If there were not so many liars out there the portable fingerprinting would not be needed.
Fists Boots and Batons worked ok for us, but then again you get paid more so I guess thats out of the question.
It wasnt an antiTaser post if you read it
Hitcher
28th June 2007, 19:21
The print cannot be stored on the pda it is simply used for a check against prints we have on file.
Really? Says who? What happens when Police get better PDAs and data upload speeds?
Paul in NZ
28th June 2007, 19:46
Really? Says who? What happens when Police get better PDAs and data upload speeds?
So say the people who know how the system works ;-) A single thumb prints pretty well useless...
Next will come the introduction of 'voluntary' ID cards. Except you'll need them for accessing health care or any government service. So everyone will need them. When they've achieved sufficient critical mass, they'll make them compulsory. Then they'll make it compulsory to carry with you at all times. Then they'll make it an arrestable offence not to carry it.
Aha, one of my favourite subjects - time to rant about it in an inappropriate forum.
We already have a need to be identified - it's good that I can't use multiple identities to claim the dole while in a job and suchlike, and demonstrate that I'm the person who's passed my driving test. The trouble is, we don't have any proper way to do that. We have a whole bunch of different things that people pretend are proof of identity that aren't.
Firstly there's the birth certificate. All that is is a piece of paper saying someone was born on a particular date, and given a particular name. It doesn't say anything at all about the person who happens to be carrying it, and was never intended to - anyone can get a copy of anybody's birth certificate; it's public info.
Then there's the driver's licence - it's got a photo on it, so I can't be carrying someone else's, right? Not quite - if I go into the AA and tell them I've lost (misplaced) my licence and want another one, they'll take a new photo and give it to me. Sure, they'll ask for id - my birth certificate ... fat lot of good that does. I believe Fair Go tested this a few years ago, and it worked fine; they walked away with a licence in someone else's name, with their own photo on it (Philip Alpers' photo on Des Britten's licence, IIRC). Admittedly if the system stored the photo, the official could compare the old with the new and realise maybe something was up, but apparently that doesn't happen, or didn't then.
Other dodgy things are used as id, too - they want proof of my address, so they ask me for a bank statement - how hard to fake is that? I just tell the bank I live at a particular address, and make sure I get to the letter box to nick the first statement while the resident's out at work.
The proposed solution to the first issue is apparently to restrict who can get access to birth certificates, which seems a totally backwards approach to me - they exist and have a purpose, and trying to load them up with another conflicting purpose will just cause problems for both purposes.
So I think we do need a proper way of identifying ourselves - possibly not one we can use on the side of the road, but one that can be used at the top of a chain of processes to get to something like the driver's licence which is used for a particular purpose. DNA may be one way; fingerprints another. As someone else said, we are no longer able to identify people directly as we were in little villages, so the id needs to be centralised - central government seems the only reasonable place to do it.
Richard
JimBob
28th June 2007, 20:27
Really? Says who? What happens when Police get better PDAs and data upload speeds?
I think they work by sending the print to the national database where the search is done. So no need to store on the pda.
And to those who think its a good idea you can voluntarily have your dna and fingerprints added to the national databases. Contact your local Police station for details.
who's first?
candor
28th June 2007, 20:34
Listening to media I was fooled into thinking they could store everyones prints.
Thats no good as then it would be easy for the Police to frame people eg ?put a mould of your fingerprint on a glass at a murder scene.
But if they don't store prints this could be good.
Just two situations of horribly mistaken identity I know of could have been cleared up.
A) A friends family was told by Police that she had died in a car crash in Lower Hutt about six years ago.
However Police were mistaken - it was her cousoin of the same name! Oops.
B) There is a criminal who has my same first and last name and who even uses the same library as I do - I looked on the screen to see her listed.
For awhile there the Police kept posting ME her summonses. The Courts would not accept my phone explanation that it wasn't me, and finally a summons came saying that if I didn't pay fines or turn up in court or something I would be arrested and put in custody! Concerning... a tad.
More ph calls and they would not believe I was not her. So I had to take a morning and spend gas money (under threat of arrest) to go to Porirua Court and show them my birth certificate with a different middle name and birth date to this woman who was up on driving charges - committed in her car not mine obviously. Did the state reimbures me - ha ha (TUI).
Now what if I was car less or a mental inept person - seems I woulda ended up in jail while the real crim roved free. Oh she has a red subaru - mines blue.
Disco Dan
28th June 2007, 20:37
not a fan of the idea myself.... :shit: good for catching the crims, but those "law abiders" who get upto a bit of "harmless mischief" on the side would be in trouble.....
Biff
28th June 2007, 21:07
Just two situations of horribly mistaken identity I know of could have been cleared up.
A good friend of mine is named David Hicks. Yup, he's lucky enough to have the same name as that Ozzie Al Qaeda fan club member.
Before the 'real' Hicks was arrested my mate was forever being stopped when trying to get into the US and OZ, and questioned for hours, waiting for various security checks to carried out on him. He ended up buying himself one of those new biometric passports, and paid to have his fingerprints taken and loaded onto the passport's chip (as have I).
Result - No more mistaken identities. Every time an immigration officer in Oz or US suspected he was the 'bad un' he asked them to read his biometric prints and compare them against their data base.
I'd vote for compulsory fingerprint/DNA registration at birth. Forget the civil liberty paranoid factions - the crime detection rate would likely go through the roof overnight IMO. Well....within about 10 years of introduction. Because most 'kids' aren't likely to commit serious crime before the age of 10 I guess.
James Deuce
28th June 2007, 21:29
I'd vote for compulsory fingerprint/DNA registration at birth. Forget the civil liberty paranoid factions - the crime detection rate would likely go through the roof overnight IMO. Well....within about 10 years of introduction. Because most 'kids' aren't likely to commit serious crime before the age of 10 I guess.
It isn't paranoia. Millions of people died in the 20th century, just for being documented as belonging to the "wrong" racial, religious, social, or military group. Not in pitched battles either.
Millions. Think about it. The regimes that perpetrated those crimes either started as Revolutionary Governments, or Reactionary Governments. Both forms of Government always start with improvements in living conditions for the average Joe and then manipulate that goodwill for their own ends. I doubt that the Revolution or Reaction will be as explicit as the two examples that spring to mind. But it will result in the deaths of people who can be "proved" to be a threat to society at large. Biometric passports are an abomination. The vast majority of humanity is just looking for a better life for themselves and their families. They aren't terrorists, carjackers, suicide bombers, or even given to brawling in the pub. But with the number of surveillance cameras in the UK for instance you'd think that everyone was a criminal. Biometric data collation is just assuming that you're a scumbag in waiting and we can catch you before you do it.
Government are servants. They are not there to collect information, biometric or otherwise, even on the basis of "The Greater Good".
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. Nor am I suggesting that the Police would deliberately capture and store data. Conspiracy theories are easily debunked by Occam's Razor.
Start collecting the information that breaks society down into desirable and undesirable traits and you re-establish a Class structure.
Crime rates won't change. They never do. The types of crimes may change, but victims won't.
Breath testing has done nothing to remove recidivist drunken drivers from our roads.
And patently not stopped the first time offenders either
[LEFT]
Fingerprinting every NZ citizen will not reduce crime.
Neither will tougher sentences mate
I for one would be horror struck if we were all to be fingerprinted for no reason other than the fact that we may commit a crime in the future. It is a blatant disregard for my basic human rights and smacks of a government and its departments totally out of tune with those they are supposed to SERVE.
Mr :shit:
Hear, hear that man!
No way I want my fingerprints recorded on any database! I have nothing to hide, and yes I can hear the argument about making it easier to identify criminals on the roadside or whatever.
If required I will provide my name etc to the police, as I am legally required to do, not a problem. The powers that be already hold far too much information about me, I dont fancy them having anymore.
mbazza
28th June 2007, 21:48
Finger prints at the road side. I've said it on here before, why bother with these simple measures, I'll have my chip in my neck on the right just below the helmet line and I'll smile as we all go under! Cheers :Punk:
Biff
28th June 2007, 21:57
Fairy snuff Jim. But these atrocities occurred despite the fact that biometric information wasn't in existence at the time, not because of it. I fail to see the how introducing compulsory registration would further increase any inherent risk to the citizens of most 'developed' democratic countries from any actions by some misguided bigoted regimes anymore than that which could occur today. Nor do I see how simply by registering someone’s unique biometric information would, in itself, single out a specific ethnic/religious/political section of society for any hypothetical future government's 'cleansing' program. Compulsory registration already exists in society today, so why should people fear persecution simply because the authorities require that you register your fingerprints at birth. Or DNA for that matter.
What I stated was that the detection rate would likely increase exponentially following the advent of compulsory registration, which already happens today anyway (date, place of birth etc), not a reduction in the level of crime itself. Although I would argue that with the improvement in the detection/prosecution rate any potential crim with an ounce of common sense would re-consider committing a crime in the first place.
scumdog
28th June 2007, 22:50
It isn't paranoia. Millions of people died in the 20th century, just for being documented as belonging to the "wrong" racial, religious, social, or military group. Not in pitched battles either.
Millions. Think about it.
Listen Polly-anna, back then fingerprints were in their infancy and DNA was the initials of an obscure Yankee filmstar.
So take you and your ugly troll elsewhere.
SARGE
28th June 2007, 23:37
i know for a fact i have a DNA sample, Fingerprints and an iris scan in a file in Washington DC..
dont matter ..
(ok... the fingerprints and iris scan they made me give ... they got the DNA sample when the doc left the room for 3 minutes...) :innocent:
spudchucka
29th June 2007, 06:54
Aw c'mon guy, what you got against this village??
Come on mate, you live close to Gore. Now there's a village full of idiots!
Grahameeboy
29th June 2007, 07:32
Aha!
That is trotted out by conservative law abiding "citizens" every time basic human rights are removed.
It's not the fact that you have nothing to hide that should be determining whether they are allowed to do this.
The NZ Police can already detain you without suspicion. Remember - a check point is detaining you from proceeding about your lawful business. Most Police Forces with a basis in upholding the freedom of the people they protect need to suspect you of an actual crime before they can stop you, and be able to prove that they had reason to suspect you of a crime in a court of law.
Removing rights of movement and privacy are the first steps in the establishment of every totalitarian state. The changes are ALWAYS welcomed by those with nothing to hide. These laws are always ultimately used to make people who ask difficult questions disappear.
Every single country where this type of thing has happened has been at the start of a long nasty downward spiral.
Read your history and try to understand it. Every Government that attempts to limit the freedom of movement and gather and store information about its citizens has passed a point of no return.
I prefer to read the Beano.......however, passports provide a lot of personal information and have been around a while without a downward spiral so why would fingerprints make much difference..............
I am 45 in a few weeks and to be honest have not seen this downward spiral that you talk about or think that my choices are being eroded......
Grahameeboy
29th June 2007, 07:33
Come on mate, you live close to Gore. Now there's a village full of idiots!
Is that where women shave their faces??
davereid
29th June 2007, 09:41
I think many here miss the point.
Good and popular laws get the co-operation of the people. The police can rely on the community to assist them when they are investigation unpoplular crimes.
Virtually everyone approves of laws that restrict behaviour that can do harm to innocent parties, children, or dogs !
But the next tier of laws don't restrict behaviour that harms other people. They restrict behaviour that either harms no-one, or is only harmful to yourself. (ie the BZP ban.)
These laws are generally justified for a concept called "the public good". This is pretty much a financial justification, along the lines of "if you use BZP you might get sick and I have to pay for your health care" or really thin ideas like "if you use BZP you might go nutty and break one of the laws in Cat 1"
Law is the use of force against another person against their will. So unsurprisingly, these type of laws get much lower levels of co-operation from the public. Many of us simply turn a blind eye to the use of cannabis by people we know as an example. The key point is, that laws in this category are NOT universally supported by the community.
The third type of laws are manipulative. They have no real purpose but to shore up the system, and ensure its survival. These type of laws are used in despotic regimes to control the population. Laws in this category are universally hated, but are enforced by police regardless.
The catch is, that laws in the first group can generally be enforced by police who DON'T have draconion powers.
Laws in the LAST group can only be enforced by laws that allow police extra powers, generally associated with ideas like ID cards / systems, checkpoints, etc etc.
We allow the police to be given these powers at our peril, as they enable the govenment levels of control that it may not have the maturity to cope with.
But bad laws need better tools if they are to be enforced.
Renegade
29th June 2007, 09:43
i have to agree with the likes of spudchucker and the others on here.
Civil..your are an idiot, blah blah fredom of movement, go find a tree to hug, you have a drivers licence so people and assume you can actually operate your machine in relative saftey, if you dont want to comply hand your licence in and walk, save the ozone.
Roadside prints..match, identifies crook and or outstanding unsolved crime, no match...free to go.
It amazes me how the general public, politicains included have no idea what kind of criminals are out there and how dangerous NZ actualy is, dont believe me i hear you say...then put ya hand up for a ride in a police car on a friday or saturday night in south auckland, no way thats the police's job...then how can you have an informed opinion if you are'nt informed?
99% of the general public wont ever have their rights taken from them however they may have to comply with their obligations as a citizen, boo hoo poor you, oh how you have been put out.
If you commit a crime, by that i mean crimes act, you deserve to forfeit your rights, after all you took away some one elses i.e the right to sleep safely in their bed at night without their house being invaded or stealing their proprty they worked hard for, are'nt those YOUR rights?
Harden up tree huggers
Patrick
29th June 2007, 09:59
Applogies, My spelling is not up to the standard of Police recruits. Or is it?
You mean like that guy who was shot dead in England for running to catch his train with a back pack and who the Police thought was a terrorist?
Or those held without being charged in guantanamo bay?
But then good old NZ is a much more civilised counrty than those ones, and we can trust our police force more than those ones!!! It's not like our police go about raping woman and looking at kiddy porn or anything!
1. Yes, you're spelling is up to grade...
2. That was England... your point???
3. That is Guantanamo Bay... your point?
4. A couple of coppers over the last 20 odd years, but we are all rapists... aaaaaaaaaallllllllllll righty then.........And what kiddie porn are you talking about?
Patrick
29th June 2007, 10:08
Really? Says who? What happens when Police get better PDAs and data upload speeds?
You're joking??? Better??? For the NZ Police? We have radios capable of encription so the scrotes can't hear us coming, but hell no, that costs $$... There are better body armour makers/suppliers, but no... Shite, I'm fairly sure our computors are on dial up, geez they are slow... There is better equipment all round, but the cheaper the better is the reality folks..., sorry....
Patrick
29th June 2007, 10:15
... they got the DNA sample when the doc left the room for 3 minutes...) :innocent:
3 minutes??? You stayer!!!
Mr Merde
29th June 2007, 10:18
...
Civil..your are an idiot, ...
Harden up tree huggers
Because I feel that the govenment/authorities are out of control, and no longer do the job they were originally slated to do rather that they are too much into their own self interests, does not make me a "tree hugger". I think you will find if you ever met me, that I am as far from that description as a marshmallow is to a piece of granite.
More and more, in todays societies, I see the megoliths that are governmental deparments caring less and less about the job they are supposed to be doing and more about self perpetuation. I am a concerned citizen and unfortunately I can be a vocal one. This is to my detriment sometimes as I often engage the mouth before the brain has kicked into gear, a common fault amongst those who are passionate about a topic, witness this by the members of this very site.
I honestly believe in most of what I am saying. I say most as sometimes I will just spout some drivel just to get a rise from people. (part time troll).
Therefore in answer to your statement.
Harden Up Tree Huggers
I am not of that ilk and
Why should I.
Patrick
29th June 2007, 10:23
Why? Ever asked how and when did the state get control over the mode of transport that you use and so restricts your freedom of movement? I am sure it was for a good reason.
Do you know what limitations are placed upon that restriction or control?
I am sure that if we read all the Statues and Acts and Regulations we could find out, but that would come at a significant personal cost. Easyer to just do want we are told, rather than stand up for your rights.
If you do not know your rights and how to get them, then it is the same as if you don't have them.
Driving is not a right, you have to prove your ability and be licenced. You lose this if you are a menace to others. Fair enough? I think so...
The Police shouldn't be able to take your fingerprints without arresting you. What's next, having one's own personal copper friend who goes everywhere with one just in case one gets some sort of criminal urge?
Might be a little hard to recruit this many, but except for the odd rogue copper then, it would solve all crime problems in an instant....
civil
29th June 2007, 11:16
Please do not take offence with little bits of information I provide in this forum, such as it is a crime to "Drive" other wise you would not need a "Drivers Licence", with the corresponding loss of freedom.
My intention is only to inform those who are want to hear my points related to this topic on the suggested further loss of freedom.
Most people in todays society can not hear the truth of how we are enslaved, as it comes at too high a personal cost to accept that it has happened. I can understand this as few feel they can pay the cost to be free to take responsibility for themselves. The limited liability provided by a loss of freedom has always been sold as a benifit.
Governmental society today functions on the lack of education and apthay in the people. People dont know and dont care.
Tell me all those who say you need a "Drivers Licence" to travel, did you read the relavent Acts, statues and regulations before you went and got it? and if it effects you in some way, why not?
spudchucka
29th June 2007, 11:38
Most people in todays society can not hear the truth of how we are enslaved,
You're Tariana Turia, I can tell!
The Pastor
29th June 2007, 11:42
They already have my fingerprints on file, so what do I care LoL.
Mr Merde
29th June 2007, 11:44
...
Most people in todays society can not hear the truth of how we are enslaved, as it comes at too high a personal cost to accept that it has happened.
....
This is the opinion I came to many years ago. I have always exercised the one right allowed to me over this time, my vote.
For what good it has done. At least I feel as though I have made my views known.
Tell me when does benevolence become oppression?
Everyone and everything starts with the greatest of hopes and ideals and somewhere along the way becomes cold , hard and self centred.
Those people that dont we call "saints" or similar platitudes.
No organisation ever survives.
A few quote follow from a great exponent of civil liberties
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136431.html)
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136362.html)
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html)
When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157238.html)
Rant finished
Bass
29th June 2007, 12:55
I think many here miss the point.
Good and popular laws get the co-operation of the people. The police can rely on the community to assist them when they are investigating unpopular crimes.
Virtually everyone approves of laws that restrict behaviour that can do harm to innocent parties, children, or dogs !
But the next tier of laws don't restrict behaviour that harms other people. They restrict behaviour that either harms no-one, or is only harmful to yourself. (ie the BZP ban.)
These laws are generally justified for a concept called "the public good". This is pretty much a financial justification, along the lines of "if you use BZP you might get sick and I have to pay for your health care" or really thin ideas like "if you use BZP you might go nutty and break one of the laws in Cat 1"
Law is the use of force against another person against their will. So unsurprisingly, these type of laws get much lower levels of co-operation from the public. Many of us simply turn a blind eye to the use of cannabis by people we know as an example. The key point is, that laws in this category are NOT universally supported by the community.
The third type of laws are manipulative. They have no real purpose but to shore up the system, and ensure its survival. These type of laws are used in despotic regimes to control the population. Laws in this category are universally hated, but are enforced by police regardless.
The catch is, that laws in the first group can generally be enforced by police who DON'T have draconion powers.
Laws in the LAST group can only be enforced by laws that allow police extra powers, generally associated with ideas like ID cards / systems, checkpoints, etc etc.
We allow the police to be given these powers at our peril, as they enable the govenment levels of control that it may not have the maturity to cope with.
But bad laws need better tools if they are to be enforced.
Im ambivalent.
I think that the coppers, on the whole, do a difficult and sometimes dangerous job, reasonably well.
The historical abuses of civil rights used as examples by some in this thread, did not occur overnight - the deterioration was a slow process. Each small step in this process was seen as harmless in itself, but by the time the accumulated harm was obvious, it was too late.
So where do we draw the line then??
I don't know, but I do know that we need to be on our guard because I see my liberties being slowly eroded, although not to a serious degree YET.
I think Davereid's summary is a good one.
I would be interested in reading some reasoned discussion to refute it, but I haven't seen any yet.
Patrick
29th June 2007, 17:14
They already have my fingerprints on file, so what do I care LoL.
They have mine too...
I don't commit crime, no worries... I am not wanted, no worries... I have a drivers licence, no worries... If I forget it, a thumb print will confirm I am who I am, (instead of Police doing other checks which can hold me up at the roadside for 10-15 minutes while they do so)... no worries.
All these conspiracy theories make good reading... it shows some actually do get out a bit... at least to the movies... or the fiction section in the library...
Max Preload
29th June 2007, 17:29
Listen Polly-anna, back then fingerprints were in their infancy and DNA was the initials of an obscure Yankee filmstar.
And yet they still managed to exterminate them, despite that infancy.
Once they start treating everyone like a criminal, I for one will certainly start acting like one.
Patrick
29th June 2007, 17:36
Once they start treating everyone like a criminal, I for one will certainly start acting like one.
Crime is rampant, apparently (even according to many on here)... There are so many out there causing havoc, some you can't tell, others you can....
Hitcher
29th June 2007, 18:28
What is the point of the Police swiping a thumbprint on a PDA or any other device, if they don't have your fingerprint records to match it against? There is something deeply not right about this whole proposal.
Why don't they take a DNA swab? It won't be that many more years (thanks to the heal-prick records taken from babies born in New Zealand) that Police and other state-enforcement agencies will be able to spy on people using that database.
Perhaps a barcode tattooed on one's forehead isn't so Orwellian after all. God Bless The State!
civil
29th June 2007, 18:37
I think Davereid's summary is a good one.
I would be interested in reading some reasoned discussion to refute it, but I haven't seen any yet.
Don't hold your breath, I have been looking for reasoned argument for some time from those that support the forcing of their will upon others to gain control over them. What you tend to get from such people is the likes of this;
You're Tariana Turia, I can tell!
No dumbarse,
, but I do have a low idiot tolerance. You've just triggered an episode.
shows that you have the mental capacity of a paper cup. But just so you aren't completely disappointed, here's a virtual poke in the eye.
Good grief, what is about KB that seems to attract a brand new village idiot about every six months or so?
scumdog
29th June 2007, 18:48
What is the point of the Police swiping a thumbprint on a PDA or any other device, if they don't have your fingerprint records to match it against? There is something deeply not right about this whole proposal.
The thing is Mr H. that if you WERE a criminal and were lying about who you were the fingerprints would show you up.
If you were 'never-been-in-trouble-with-the-law' Joe Citizen it would return a blank, the print would be destoyed and that's the end of it.
ONE print is not worth retaining if you were not 'in the system' - but one print would be all it would take to nail you if you WERE in the system.:yes:
Grahameeboy
29th June 2007, 18:54
I really don't know what all the moaning is about.........DNA, fingerprinting etc only becomes an invasion of our rights when we do something to destroy our rights i.e break the law.
Do you really think that having this information on a database changes anything.......remember all that fuss over photo driving licences.....geeze didn't it change things...not...the only thing that changed was you started to look older than the photo.
If you feel threatened save up and buy an island.
Hitcher
29th June 2007, 18:58
So what would happen if I was wandering along pursuing my lawful business and was apprehended by an officer of the law who wanted to validate my identity; let's say I was not a criminal, but I had chosen to lie about who I was and the Police had my fingerprint records on file. In this circumstance am I any more of a criminal than a person who, in exactly the same circumstances, also lies to the Police about who they are but for whom the Police do not hold fingerprint records?
scumdog
29th June 2007, 19:05
So what would happen if I was wandering along pursuing my lawful business and was apprehended by an officer of the law who wanted to validate my identity; let's say I was not a criminal, but I had chosen to lie about who I was and the Police had my fingerprint records on file. In this circumstance am I any more of a criminal than a person who, in exactly the same circumstances, also lies to the Police about who they are but for whom the Police do not hold fingerprint records?
No, you're not any more of a 'criminal' - but you would be 'nailed' if your prints were on record.
Police do NOT hold onto fingerprints of 'non-criminals' :yes:
So in the above example they would not have your prints on record hence you would not be 'nailed'.
u4ea
29th June 2007, 19:16
No, you're not any more of a 'criminal' - but you would be 'nailed' if your prints were on record.
Police do NOT hold onto fingerprints of 'non-criminals' :yes:
So in the above example they would not have your prints on record hence you would not be 'nailed'.
What about the new rule that nothing shows up after so many years??I bet you guys will see those convictions.
Which would mean the lawabiding citizen who has behaved ever since gets NAILED everytime a cop wants their prints??
Grahameeboy
29th June 2007, 19:20
What about the new rule that nothing shows up after so many years??I bet you guys will see those convictions.
Which would mean the lawabiding citizen who has behaved ever since gets NAILED everytime a cop wants their prints??
Geeze...and...they... will... see...that...you...have...been...good...and reformed...you know a positive like.....
civil
29th June 2007, 20:05
I really don't know what all the moaning is about.........DNA, fingerprinting etc only becomes an invasion of our rights when we do something to destroy our rights i.e break the law.
Great no problem, until such time as it becomes ilegal to do something that you happen to do. Like say smack your kids, or take photos of politicians picking their noses, or not pay chilld support, or be late paying GST, get a fine for speeding, parking tickets etc, etc.
So for anyone who dose not do anything ilegal, now or never will do anything ilegal in the future, even as the state takes more control over your lives and tells you what you can and cant do, then there are no problems for you. You can go and stand over in the corner with the other couple of people who also just do as they are told even when they know it is wrong. We have a time machine for you to take you back to nazi germany as that is where you belong, and where you may learn the error of your ways.
civil
29th June 2007, 20:08
P.S for those who are going back to nazi germany, I hope you are not Jewish.
scumdog
29th June 2007, 20:09
What about the new rule that nothing shows up after so many years??I bet you guys will see those convictions.
Which would mean the lawabiding citizen who has behaved ever since gets NAILED everytime a cop wants their prints??
Yep, WE will see the convictions 'cos they will still be on the computer - but judges, bosses etc won't.
And as rule we ignore really old convictions when it comes to judging somebody.
"Ah well, he had a few silly convictions when he was young, can't be that bad after all"
98tls
29th June 2007, 20:22
Personally i couldnt give a rats.........if it helps catch shitheads quicker then bring it on........
civil
29th June 2007, 20:29
And as rule we ignore really old convictions when it comes to judging somebody.
But arent the Police "Law Enforcement" not "Judicuatary"? Are you now saying that the police get to judge if I get to go before the courts?
Anyone else see the slipery slope we are going down?
scumdog
29th June 2007, 20:34
But arent the Police "Law Enforcement" not "Judicuatary"? Are you now saying that the police get to judge if I get to go before the courts?
Anyone else see the slipery slope we are going down?
Yep, but we need something to help us use our 'discretion' - a useless piece of criminal wife bashing shit (going by previous convictions) is obviously not going to get the same slack cut as a guy whose worse crime was 'minor in public bar'.
Crowdog
29th June 2007, 20:42
Hell they already got my prints and mugshot an updates not gonna hurt
candor
29th June 2007, 20:42
Driving is not a right, you have to prove your ability and be licenced. You lose this if you are a menace to others. Fair enough? I think so...
....
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the judickery's point of view. They want thirteen times DUI convicted people with forty total driving convictions on the road as it helps with their rehabilitation no end. They clearly feel the Police are just being mean and punitive people to go dragging drink drivers with raging P habits like Alan Hogg in to court.
98tls
29th June 2007, 20:49
Great no problem, until such time as it becomes ilegal to do something that you happen to do. Like say smack your kids, or take photos of politicians picking their noses, or not pay chilld support, or be late paying GST, get a fine for speeding, parking tickets etc, etc.
So for anyone who dose not do anything ilegal, now or never will do anything ilegal in the future, even as the state takes more control over your lives and tells you what you can and cant do, then there are no problems for you. You can go and stand over in the corner with the other couple of people who also just do as they are told even when they know it is wrong. We have a time machine for you to take you back to nazi germany as that is where you belong, and where you may learn the error of your ways. Nazi Germanys policy had nothing to do with controlling people...it was way simplier than that.
civil
29th June 2007, 20:49
So justice in NZ is not blind or not?
When Sue Bradford is PM and she tells the Police that smacking naughty children is worse than wife beating, and that this is to be police prioirty. Will you go out and do your master's bidding?
What about if the instruction of your master was to round up all those with the star of david on their jackets?
The finger printing check that is suggested make it so much easyier doing you think?
civil
29th June 2007, 20:52
Nazi Germanys policy had nothing to do with controlling people...it was way simplier than that.
Tell me a PM in office today who dose not believe they can determine the controls over how we live.
98tls
29th June 2007, 20:56
Tell me a PM in office today who dose not believe they can determine the controls over how we live. Sorry mate cant do as i dont know any PMs......actually i dont want to know any of em.......yes i see your point.Then again i wouldnt mind bumping into winston peters just to head butt him.........
Sanx
29th June 2007, 21:43
Should the Police get these powers (and the technology to perform on-the-spot checks), I look forward to reading about the first time they decide to go fishing. More and more people will end up being subjected to these random fingerprint checks. Would be very tempting to, for instance, block off the exits to Westfield Manukau on the pretence that some crim's run into the mall, and then proceed to require a fingerprint from everyone before they're let out.
When people have powers, they use them. Give someone more power, they'll use that too. And no-one needs reminding of the old adage about the relationship between power and corruption.
Which brings me on to something else, actually. Should I, Mr Honest-And-Upstanding Joe Public, be stopped by the boys in blue and asked to place my finger on their little scanner, what is the proposed punishment should I refuse?
Patrick
29th June 2007, 23:25
So what would happen if I was wandering along pursuing my lawful business and was apprehended by an officer of the law who wanted to validate my identity; let's say I was not a criminal, but I had chosen to lie about who I was and the Police had my fingerprint records on file. In this circumstance am I any more of a criminal than a person who, in exactly the same circumstances, also lies to the Police about who they are but for whom the Police do not hold fingerprint records?
Walking or driving??? Walking, you can lie, nothing happens. Driving and lying about your name will cost you $750 instant fine, or a court hearing and fine of up to $1000.
Don't hold your breath, I have been looking for reasoned argument for some time from those that support the forcing of their will upon others to gain control over them. What you tend to get from such people is the likes of this;
Chill Civil... Conspiracy Theory and 1984 were just movies, nothing more..... we are also looking for reasoned arguments, not ramblings about movies and books seen by some... nothing here, move on folks.
But arent the Police "Law Enforcement" not "Judicuatary"? Are you now saying that the police get to judge if I get to go before the courts?
Anyone else see the slipery slope we are going down?
There is nothing new here... joe cleanskin or reformed joe scrote will be treated differently to the recidivist...
Should I, Mr Honest-And-Upstanding Joe Public, be stopped by the boys in blue and asked to place my finger on their little scanner, what is the proposed punishment should I refuse?
Produce your licence when driving, all is good as ID will already be confirmed...
spudchucka
29th June 2007, 23:26
Don't hold your breath, I have been looking for reasoned argument for some time from those that support the forcing of their will upon others to gain control over them. What you tend to get from such people is the likes of this;
Feel the love!!:love:
spudchucka
29th June 2007, 23:32
But arent the Police "Law Enforcement" not "Judicuatary"? Are you now saying that the police get to judge if I get to go before the courts?
Anyone else see the slipery slope we are going down?
Police have always had discretion. Would you like to see it eroded and have the police charging people whenever an offence is detected regardless of how minor.
Police exercise judgement whenever they elect whether or not to lay charges, an offender's history, (past and present) is just one factor that assists them to make those judgements.
spudchucka
29th June 2007, 23:37
More and more people will end up being subjected to these random fingerprint checks.
If you are driving a motor vehicle on a road all you have to do is produce your driver licence, if you do you won't be subjected to the thumb print check. That's all it will be, just another check that can be done to confirm a person's identity when they fail to provide any other form of ID.
Sanx
30th June 2007, 00:12
If you are driving a motor vehicle on a road all you have to do is produce your driver licence, if you do you won't be subjected to the thumb print check. That's all it will be, just another check that can be done to confirm a person's identity when they fail to provide any other form of ID.
Produce your licence when driving, all is good as ID will already be confirmed...
Apologies. In retrospect, my question was a little vague. My question about refusing to have my fingerprints checked was in relation to being stopped on the street or somewhere where it is legal to not have ID on me. As I understand it, failing to carry a licence whilst driving is an offence already. Are these new powers only to be used at the roadside?
But, that does bring me on to another question: if presenting another form of ID like a driving licence is acceptable, surely the half the point of using the portable scanners (i.e. matching fingerprints against unfnown persons who have left prints at a crime scene) is negated. Obviously anyone already with a warrant outstanding will get picked up on presentation of a valid licence, but someone unknown to the Police but whose fingerprints are recorded against some unsolved crime will not.
JimBob
30th June 2007, 05:56
Societies live in a perpetual state of anarchy. It’s the proportion of state control to anarchy that changes over time.
We start out with 100% anarchy, a state is created, and slowly but surely anarchy is replaced by state control. There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing but the state wins out in the end. When it does, it collapses and we start all over again.
This process takes 50, 100, 1000 yrs but it happens, no society has ever got the balance right. Just because we have laptops, motorcycles, the All Blacks, and SkyTV doesn’t mean we are any different from the Romans, Russians, Greeks, Germans, Czechs, Fijians, Samoans, Turks, Mayans, or Scots. Its human nature.
Many of the things people in Western democracies are putting up with now, only 30 years ago, were what we saw as wrong with the Soviet Union.
Look at England, the home of Parliamentary Democracy. Now the most watched population in the world. The “police” or whoever is pulling their strings is pushing ahead with biometric id for the total population. Hasn’t happened yet but it is on the table which means its only a matter of time. And we are not that far behind. Did you know we were the 2nd country in the world to introduce a national DNA database? We didn’t win that but there are still some firsts we can take if we get cracking.
And there is always a good reason, in England they had the Irish and now they have terrorism. In America they had the USSR, then drugs, and now its terrorism. In NZ we have gangs, drunk drivers and p labs. If any of these “problems” are solved/controlled do we step back? No we find another problem and ramp it up some more.
And from the police hierarchy to the politicians its always “we NEED to do this to keep you safe from ………..”
I know we are a bit slow down here but our society is no different from any other and in 20, 50 100 yrs time someone will wake up one day and say “fuck this shit”. c'est la vie
spudchucka
30th June 2007, 07:25
Apologies. In retrospect, my question was a little vague. My question about refusing to have my fingerprints checked was in relation to being stopped on the street or somewhere where it is legal to not have ID on me. As I understand it, failing to carry a licence whilst driving is an offence already. Are these new powers only to be used at the roadside?
But, that does bring me on to another question: if presenting another form of ID like a driving licence is acceptable, surely the half the point of using the portable scanners (i.e. matching fingerprints against unfnown persons who have left prints at a crime scene) is negated. Obviously anyone already with a warrant outstanding will get picked up on presentation of a valid licence, but someone unknown to the Police but whose fingerprints are recorded against some unsolved crime will not.
Not carrying your licence when you drive is an offence currently. There is no legislation that requires anyone in NZ to ID themselves on demand when they are just going about their lawful business, (except relating to the Arms Act and other Acts that clearly state the specific circumstances).
The thumb scanner is just about identification of the person. One thumb print is not going to link a person to an unsolved crime, considering that they have nine other digits and two sets of palms. Perhaps it would be enough to make them a suspect but in order to charge anyone with an offence based upon a fingerprint identification requires the finger print examiner to make an actual physical comparison of the crime scene print and the prints taken off the person at the time they were arrested and charged with a previous offence.
Grahameeboy
30th June 2007, 07:32
Some people here are scared of their own shadow I reckon eh Spud......
JimBob
30th June 2007, 09:13
Some people here are scared of their own shadow I reckon eh Spud......
The reason for using the scanner is to help verify your identity because you are suspected of providing false details. If there is a match your details are verified. If no match there is no verification so you are still under suspicion which will require a trip down the road to continue the identification process.
So in order for it to work everyone’s details need to be on file.
That’s the bit they’re not telling you.
And its not about being afraid of your own shadow. Its about thinking for yourself and making your own decisions. If you are unable or afraid to do that then fair enough. Get in a line and keep in step.
Personally I could give a tupenny toss about fingerprints dna etc.
It’s the blind acceptance without question that irks me.
Grahameeboy
30th June 2007, 09:16
The reason for using the scanner is to help verify your identity because you are suspected of providing false details. If there is a match your details are verified. If no match there is no verification so you are still under suspicion which will require a trip down the road to continue the identification process.
So in order for it to work everyone’s details need to be on file.
That’s the bit they’re not telling you.
And its not about being afraid of your own shadow. Its about thinking for yourself and making your own decisions. If you are unable or afraid to do that then fair enough. Get in a line and keep in step.
Personally I could give a tupenny toss about fingerprints dna etc.
It’s the blind acceptance without question that irks me.
But if it is not actually a problem why does it irk you...........why does fingerprinting stop us from thinking for ourselves?
ManDownUnder
30th June 2007, 09:30
I have a personal preference for DNA identification. Get a cute blonde out there skilled in "seminal evacuation" and see how many complaints there are...
To actually add constructively though. The only concern I have with information gathering is the potential for it's misues in the hands of (future?) corrupt organisations. Then, despite I have nothing to hide, it can be used against me.
Just as all Jews could eaily be ruled out of an enquiry because their DNA or other recorded characteristics rule them out... if that technology had been available in Germany around 1940 I'm willing to bet Auschwitz would have been built 3 times the size...
I have nothing to fear today. And indeed I personally believe this stuff is being used to speed my progress (especially through every US port, every time I go through). Sure they can track me (somewhat), and count me in and out... I don't envy the poor bastard that gets the job of writing a report on me though. My passport details have been on how many systems for how long?
Grahameeboy
30th June 2007, 09:37
I have a personal preference for DNA identification. Get a cute blonde out there skilled in "seminal evacuation" and see how many complaints there are...
To actually add constructively though. The only concern I have with information gathering is the potential for it's misues in the hands of (future?) corrupt organisations. Then, despite I have nothing to hide, it can be used against me.
Just as all Jews could eaily be ruled out of an enquiry because their DNA or other recorded characteristics rule them out... if that technology had been available in Germany around 1940 I'm willing to bet Auschwitz would have been built 3 times the size...
I have nothing to fear today. And indeed I personally believe this stuff is being used to speed my progress (especially through every US port, every time I go through). Sure they can track me (somewhat), and count me in and out... I don't envy the poor bastard that gets the job of writing a report on me though. My passport details have been on how many systems for how long?
2 Things, you have a cute blonde.......and secondly I thought you couldn't give DNA anymore:gob:
ManDownUnder
30th June 2007, 09:38
2 Things, you have a cute blonde.......and secondly I thought you couldn't give DNA anymore:gob:
(yes but not NEARLY often enough...) and no but she wouldn't know till afterwards...
007XX
30th June 2007, 10:08
To actually add constructively though. The only concern I have with information gathering is the potential for it's misues in the hands of (future?) corrupt organisations. Then, despite I have nothing to hide, it can be used against me.
Should we say it actually boils down to:
No matter the means of identification, it is not so much how "invading" it is, but more the lack of confidence in the integrity of "the powers that be" , and how they would use that technology,that make us nervous?
Would you trust Helen to take a DNA sample from you??:dodge::dodge::sick::laugh:
ManDownUnder
30th June 2007, 10:17
Should we say it actually boils down to:
No matter the means of identification, it is not so much how "invading" it is, but more the lack of confidence in the integrity of "the powers that be" , and how they would use that technology,that make us nervous?
Would you trust Helen to take a DNA sample from you??:dodge::dodge::sick::laugh:
LOL if she was technically skill actually yes - IF IT WAS WARRANTED.
Now the reason for the extraction would need to be adequate, and the reason would need to be a goodun.
Would I trust her to never do anything silly... actually yes... but ALL future/subsequent organisations... Whole other question.
JimBob
30th June 2007, 10:20
But if it is not actually a problem why does it irk you...........why does fingerprinting stop us from thinking for ourselves?
Morning
It doesnt on both counts. The acceptance without question is what irks me.
When other people are deciding what’s good for you there is nothing wrong with questioning their motives to help you make an informed decision rather than just follow the crowd because that is the easiest thing to do.
Just because it isnt a problem, it doesnt mean I have to go along with it.
Not wanting to go along with it seems to be more of a problem for the people who do.
That in itself should tell you something.
davereid
30th June 2007, 11:46
If you are driving a motor vehicle on a road all you have to do is produce your driver licence, if you do you won't be subjected to the thumb print check. That's all it will be, just another check that can be done to confirm a person's identity when they fail to provide any other form of ID.
But if you are a passenger in the car, so not legally required to have a licence, you will have to submit a fingerprint.
Patrick
30th June 2007, 12:41
the point of using the portable scanners (i.e. matching fingerprints against unfnown persons who have left prints at a crime scene) is negated. Obviously anyone already with a warrant outstanding will get picked up on presentation of a valid licence, but someone unknown to the Police but whose fingerprints are recorded against some unsolved crime will not.
I see where you are coming from... now...:yes: The "cleanskin" who has not been arrested and is good at his trade of Burglary for example, leaves his prints behind at a scene but as they are not on the database, we have no match.
The print hit then would, I assume, come back and say, "suspect for burglary" for example... We would merely obtain updated contact details (confirmed, in some way), the file would be reactivated and forwarded for further investigation with this "suspect." There may be lawful reasons for prints being found at a scene, there may not... end result though is either case solved (arrest eventually made) or suspect prints cleared or eliminated from the enquiry.:Punk:
Grahameeboy
30th June 2007, 14:07
Morning
It doesnt on both counts. The acceptance without question is what irks me.
When other people are deciding what’s good for you there is nothing wrong with questioning their motives to help you make an informed decision rather than just follow the crowd because that is the easiest thing to do.
Just because it isnt a problem, it doesnt mean I have to go along with it.
Not wanting to go along with it seems to be more of a problem for the people who do.
That in itself should tell you something.
So why question something that doesn't bother you.....must be me....
spudchucka
30th June 2007, 14:31
But if you are a passenger in the car, so not legally required to have a licence, you will have to submit a fingerprint.
Not without a major upgrade to the Land Transport Act. Section 113 allows police to demand the particulars of anyone in a vehicle, (not just the driver) but that power only relates to incidents where specific offences have occurred. For instance when a vehicle goes off the road, all the occupants are pissed but nobody will fess up to being the driver.
Mole_C
30th June 2007, 14:34
God, you guys are getting really worked up about this. Chances are they wont keep your fingerprints when they stop you. They will just check it against their database to make sure you are not a wanted crim or stealing someone elses ID.
Will likely slow you down for 2 seconds and you will go on your merry way without any change to before. The police will have ruled you out as a suspect and confirmed you are not stealing someones ID.
It will have helped catch out crims, the community will be safer and you will have just lost 2 seconds of time.
JimBob
30th June 2007, 14:50
So why question something that doesn't bother you.....must be me....
Because I want to. I am allowed to aren’t I?
I know I have been out of the country for a while but the last time I looked the Facists weren’t running the place.
Or are they?
JimBob
30th June 2007, 16:54
God, you guys are getting really worked up about this. Chances are they wont keep your fingerprints when they stop you. They will just check it against their database to make sure you are not a wanted crim or stealing someone elses ID.
Will likely slow you down for 2 seconds and you will go on your merry way without any change to before. The police will have ruled you out as a suspect and confirmed you are not stealing someones ID.
It will have helped catch out crims, the community will be safer and you will have just lost 2 seconds of time.
You have it ass about face.
The only people who can have their ID confirmed with a thumb print are those who have their prints on file. Generally speaking, criminals and ex criminals
If your prints aren’t on file(the vast majority of NZers) you will still have to go through the normal ID process which may include a trip to the station.
So until they get everyone on the database the primary means of identification will still be your licence, PP or a bill from Baycorp.
The next step is compulsory fingerprinting (its already voluntary) and then it may become the primary means of ID
Skyryder
30th June 2007, 17:48
One of the problems with this sort of thing is that once it becomes current practice it escalates into another parameter. A classic case of this was the introduction of speed cameras. At the time both the Police and Government assured the public that these devices were only going to be employed in marked areas. After public acceptance these marked areas were removed.
Much the same sort of thing was used for photo licences. This we were told was necessary so as the police can positively ID drivers. We were assured that all photos would be destroyed. Well yes they were. They were digitally ‘cut up and sold as an ID photo data base. No idea what that’s worth but the photo ID had nothing to do with the ability to ID drivers. That was the excuse that the public was fed for its introduction.
Roadside fingerprinting. Sounds nice and cosy. So it’s only for the driver. Just how long do you think it will take before this concept is applied to the entire cars occupant and then progress to public random testing?
The police already have the power to suspend your licence without any need to produce evidence of any kind. While I accept that most do not abuse this, there is no guarantee that this, and other rights of law that we all now enjoy will not be in the future.
Skyryder
Grahameeboy
30th June 2007, 17:50
Because I want to. I am allowed to aren’t I?
I know I have been out of the country for a while but the last time I looked the Facists weren’t running the place.
Or are they?
Yep, it's up to you.......
Patrick
1st July 2007, 00:02
If your prints aren’t on file(the vast majority of NZers) you will still have to go through the normal ID process which may include a trip to the station.
Where do you people dream up this crap??? No prints means you're a cleanskin and we don't give a shit... licence produced, good on ya mate, see ya later!
The police already have the power to suspend your licence without any need to produce evidence of any kind. While I accept that most do not abuse this, there is no guarantee that this, and other rights of law that we all now enjoy will not be in the future.Skyryder
Yep, we go out of our way to stop nanas and suspend their licences for doing nothing... get a grip on reality people... People get their licences suspended for obvious reasons and if they choose to bullshit about it, how does that become Police abusing the law????
JimBob
1st July 2007, 03:20
Where do you people dream up this crap??? No prints means you're a cleanskin and we don't give a shit... licence produced, good on ya mate, see ya later!
did you even bother to read the post before calling it crap?
Jeremy
1st July 2007, 03:36
Would everyone be happier if it was an open system that anyone could use?
I for one would be quiet happy if there was a quick check I could do against someone that given say their Driver's license number would return their photo, and given their finger print their driver's license photo so that if they didn't match I could go "eh?".
Don't just give that power to the police. Give it to my bank, so that someone else can't access my accounts faking being me. Give it to the landlords so they can go "um, you owe two grand to your last landlord...". Give it to my local liquor store and bar.
Everyone.
675trippy
1st July 2007, 05:53
You have it ass about face.
The only people who can have their ID confirmed with a thumb print are those who have their prints on file. Generally speaking, criminals and ex criminals
If your prints aren’t on file(the vast majority of NZers) you will still have to go through the normal ID process which may include a trip to the station.
So until they get everyone on the database the primary means of identification will still be your licence, PP or a bill from Baycorp.
The next step is compulsory fingerprinting (its already voluntary) and then it may become the primary means of ID
don't be fooled, do you really think that the devices they use to collect prints can't be hooked up to a computer later to download all prints back at the station.I thought the idea of a photo on a license was for this purpose, the civil liberties of all nz'ers is being abused. people also have prints on file to eliminate them from crime scenes e.t.c. it's not just crims.
Grahameeboy
1st July 2007, 07:57
:yawn::yawn::yawn::sleep::sleep::sleep: please wake me up when all this paranoia ends
don't be fooled, do you really think that the devices they use to collect prints can't be hooked up to a computer later to download all prints back at the station.I thought the idea of a photo on a license was for this purpose, the civil liberties of all nz'ers is being abused. people also have prints on file to eliminate them from crime scenes e.t.c. it's not just crims.
Do you honestly believe that there's some secret policy to log and record the prints of innocent members of the public in NZ?
If so - you're the one being fooled mate, reading too many conspiracy theory books and believing their all true. Another bout of KB paranoia me thinks.
Grahameeboy
1st July 2007, 08:25
Do you honestly believe that there's some secret policy to log and record the prints of innocent members of the public in NZ?
If so - you're the one being fooled mate, reading too many conspiracy theory books and believing their all true. Another bout of KB paranoia me thinks.
I am even getting paranoid bout KBer's getting paranoid!! But to be honest, it is a Kiwi culture thing I sometimes think...........eeee what do I know being a whinging POM eh..........you know this is the 2nd day of heavy rain in Auckland.......must be global warming.....batten down the hatches.......
Krusti
1st July 2007, 09:24
Anyway, my mother said not to go sticking my finger in things. You never know where it's been.
Skyryder
1st July 2007, 11:06
did you even bother to read the post before calling it crap?
He got my one wrong too. I think English is 'her' second language.
Skyryder
davereid
1st July 2007, 11:51
The Heralds view..
Mole_C
1st July 2007, 12:14
...................
spudchucka
1st July 2007, 12:28
don't be fooled, do you really think that the devices they use to collect prints can't be hooked up to a computer later to download all prints back at the station.I thought the idea of a photo on a license was for this purpose, the civil liberties of all nz'ers is being abused. people also have prints on file to eliminate them from crime scenes e.t.c. it's not just crims.
There's some very paranoid people around here.
One thumb print alone is not much use for anything other than confirming the identity of a person whose prints are already held.
spudchucka
1st July 2007, 12:31
Do you honestly believe that there's some secret policy to log and record the prints of innocent members of the public in NZ?
It appears from the contents of this thread that there are many equally foolish people about.
scumdog
1st July 2007, 12:38
I say yet again: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
That's not an ID card. It doesn't have your fingerprints on it. You don't have to have it with you at all times (only when driving). Driving is not a civil liberty or human right, it's a privilege. There's a distinction.
Wouldn't they have the ability to read your iris from the photos taken? the picture of you on your licence is a thumbnail but im sure the picture stored is a larger size. Isnt a persons iris another form of unique identity like finger prints? I see a drivers licence as a stage 1 ID card. You gotta start somewhere right, and have a reason for people to comply and accept it.
Mole_C
1st July 2007, 13:08
I say yet again: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
Shit!!!!!! Call Greenpeace, they'll know what to do.
pritch
1st July 2007, 13:19
Aha!
That is trotted out by conservative law abiding "citizens" every time basic human rights are removed.
Exactly! An example of the logic that gave Germany a Nazi Party Government.
(That and some other umm irregularities...)
Patrick
1st July 2007, 13:37
did you even bother to read the post before calling it crap?
Yeah, maybe I misunderstand what you are saying or have interpreted it wrong... I took it as you saying if your prints are not on record, you may be taken to the station for further checks to be made...
Your prints not on record from previous busts or from being located at a crime scene is a good thing, and you will not be "bothered" any longer... was my point in reply.
Patrick
1st July 2007, 13:40
He got my one wrong too. I think English is 'her' second language.
Skyryder
Nah... headcold at midnight...:doh:
This was a response to other threads where it is claimed Police "make up bullshit" just to take licences off innocent motorists....not necessarily your call, but one I took as heading that way...
Littleman
1st July 2007, 14:35
Please do not take offence with little bits of information I provide in this forum, such as it is a crime to "Drive" other wise you would not need a "Drivers Licence", with the corresponding loss of freedom.
My intention is only to inform those who are want to hear my points related to this topic on the suggested further loss of freedom.
Most people in todays society can not hear the truth of how we are enslaved, as it comes at too high a personal cost to accept that it has happened. I can understand this as few feel they can pay the cost to be free to take responsibility for themselves. The limited liability provided by a loss of freedom has always been sold as a benifit.
Governmental society today functions on the lack of education and apthay in the people. People dont know and dont care.
Tell me all those who say you need a "Drivers Licence" to travel, did you read the relavent Acts, statues and regulations before you went and got it? and if it effects you in some way, why not?
My god.... its Peter WILLIAMS QC!!!
Wouldn't they have the ability to read your iris from the photos taken?
I doubt it very much, from the crappy little consumer grade camera they were using at VTNZ for mine.
Richard
peasea
1st July 2007, 22:14
They'll do what they want, take what they want and make of it what they want. You can protest your freakin' head off, it'll do no good. Look at your lifetime license; that was just another broken government contract....
Your details aren't private anyway and if you believe that they are you've got rocks in your head. Fingerprints are just another way of identifying people, whether they've broken the law or become a victim of a serious crime etc etc.
I don't rape old ladies, rip off people's homes, property or vegetable patches. As it happens the cops already have my prints, so what do I care? We're all on camera on a day-to-day basis, they know what you spend (on what) at the supermarket every day through EFTPOS transactions, what place you spent it at blah blah blah. You wanna be safe? Get banged up in Parry; get a roof over your head, (rent free, with electricity 24/7), get fed, get your teeth fixed, make all the best business contacts in the world and not have to work a day to pay for any of it! Get a degree while you're at it.
Being an honest, hard working, humble, middle-aged heterosexual makes you an easy target; we're a minority group don't you know?
Show them you're different, show them you're special; make a stand!
Give them your prints.
Wouldn't they have the ability to read your iris from the photos taken? the picture of you on your licence is a thumbnail but im sure the picture stored is a larger size. Isnt a persons iris another form of unique identity like finger prints? I see a drivers licence as a stage 1 ID card. You gotta start somewhere right, and have a reason for people to comply and accept it.
No mate. They use special imaging techniques, including infra read illumination of your retina, and then use the information gleaned in conjunction with a specifically developed algorithm (the Dougman algorithm - he's also from Cambridge funnily enough, albeit Cambridge UK). The result = an almost unique personal mapping of your retina.
Need more guff - then Google is your friend. Or give me $400k and I'll arrange for a mate of mine to sell you your own retina scanning setup so you can impress your friends. :zzzz:
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 09:32
Its not a case of if I havent done anything wrong what have I got to hide. You could say that about anything... like bugging our cellphones, listening in on our conversations.. if you have nothing to hide it shouldnt bother you, but it would right! Its an invasion of privacy.
If I was pulled over at a checkpoint and the officer checked my WOF and Rego, Driver's Licence and ask me to breathe my name and address into the breathalyser, and then they also want me to provide finger prints, do I have the right to ask the officer to provide me with similar details.
I mean, if I am expected to front up with all those personal details when I have obviously done nothing wrong, obviously I am not a criminal. But the police aren't mind readers and a criminal would lie.
But I'm not a mind reader either and how do I know it is really a police officer, when it could be a criminal posing as a police officer to try and steal my identity, or gain information to aid them for a later burgling of my property.
If the police officer had nothing to hide then they wouldn't have any problem providing me with all their details, like the ones they expect from me. They might feel I am invading their privacy. But are they not like the government ministers and all other government employees. Paid for by my taxes and employed to serve me and all other tax paying New Zealanders. I would be asking an employee of mine to provide their personal details. It would have nothing to do with whether they have committed a crime or plan to in the future. I'm just trying to build a database of all my police that I employ.
ManDownUnder
2nd July 2007, 09:43
If the police officer had nothing to hide then they wouldn't have any problem providing me with all their details, like the ones they expect from me. They might feel I am invading their privacy. But are they not like the government ministers and all other government employees. Paid for by my taxes and employed to serve me and all other tax paying New Zealanders. I would be asking an employee of mine to provide their personal details. It would have nothing to do with whether they have committed a crime or plan to in the future. I'm just trying to build a database of all my police that I employ.
They'll give you ID and a phone number to call (or you look up the number yourself).
You're always allowed to check the ID of any authority, any time, any where. But... unless you are a cop yourself don't go pushing "your reciprocal rights". You don't have 'em. It's a great way to piss off the police and it's about that point your life gets slightly more miserable with every sentence you start.
Patrick
2nd July 2007, 09:47
If I was pulled over at a checkpoint and the officer checked my WOF and Rego, Driver's Licence and ask me to breathe my name and address into the breathalyser, and then they also want me to provide finger prints, do I have the right to ask the officer to provide me with similar details.
I mean, if I am expected to front up with all those personal details when I have obviously done nothing wrong, obviously I am not a criminal. But the police aren't mind readers and a criminal would lie.
But I'm not a mind reader either and how do I know it is really a police officer, when it could be a criminal posing as a police officer to try and steal my identity, or gain information to aid them for a later burgling of my property.
If the police officer had nothing to hide then they wouldn't have any problem providing me with all their details, like the ones they expect from me. They might feel I am invading their privacy. But are they not like the government ministers and all other government employees. Paid for by my taxes and employed to serve me and all other tax paying New Zealanders. I would be asking an employee of mine to provide their personal details. It would have nothing to do with whether they have committed a crime or plan to in the future. I'm just trying to build a database of all my police that I employ.
We can, you can't... :nya::nya::nya: And your taxes go to the dole bludging gang bangers...
Krusti
2nd July 2007, 10:18
Getting a little concerned with the direction these new laws are going.....
Pulled over by officer
Name please...
Blow on this...
put your finger in this hole...
What next? :shit:
ManDownUnder
2nd July 2007, 10:28
Getting a little concerned with the direction these new laws are going.....
Pulled over by officer
Name please...
Blow on this...
put your finger in this hole...
What next? :shit:
...face away and touch your toes..
scumdog
2nd July 2007, 10:58
If I was pulled over at a checkpoint and the officer checked my WOF and Rego, Driver's Licence and ask me to breathe my name and address into the breathalyser, and then they also want me to provide finger prints, do I have the right to ask the officer to provide me with similar details.
I mean, if I am expected to front up with all those personal details when I have obviously done nothing wrong, obviously I am not a criminal. But the police aren't mind readers and a criminal would lie.
But I'm not a mind reader either and how do I know it is really a police officer, when it could be a criminal posing as a police officer to try and steal my identity, or gain information to aid them for a later burgling of my property.
If the police officer had nothing to hide then they wouldn't have any problem providing me with all their details, like the ones they expect from me. They might feel I am invading their privacy. But are they not like the government ministers and all other government employees. Paid for by my taxes and employed to serve me and all other tax paying New Zealanders. I would be asking an employee of mine to provide their personal details. It would have nothing to do with whether they have committed a crime or plan to in the future. I'm just trying to build a database of all my police that I employ.
Youve' done 'nothing wrong' and the cop's meant to 'know' that without any checks??
So who is going to provide you with a finger-print scanner and data-base to check the prints against?
(Otherwise how WOULD you know if it was a criminal intent on burgling your place??)
But nice troll anyway!!
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 11:33
You dumb fucking arse - you would be a criminal if you DIDN'T have a licence!!
How the hell is driving a criminal act???:shit:
BTW Top troll laddie!!!
I wouldn't have thought driving was a criminal act. Only driving without a licence is a criminal act.
Having a licence just proves you chose not to break any laws for the duration of your test while being observed. Whether you choose to do so after you drive away with your new licence is irrelevant. Until you get caught. Or until you enter a roadside WOF and Rego check and get asked to prove you are who you really say you are.
So, assuming that I have a current licence, have committed no crimes that I am wanted for, am not currently breaking any laws, and I am stopped at a roadside check. WOF and Rego are all good and the officer asks for my licence. I say "Sorry I don't have it on me, but here is my passport with a photo of myself, including my details which you can check against the vehicle details in your database". A quick check would confirm that I am who I say I am, have committed no crimes, am not wanted for anything and hold a current valid licence.
But I could still get a ticket for not having the licence, even though its only use would be to identify me based on the photo and details, which was still done without the licence.
The only use my licence is to me is as a photo identifier, and to stop the inconvenience of getting a ticket for not having it.
Whether or not I have a licence in my pocket has no relevance to the way I drive on any given day or whether or not the activities I chose to engage in are considered criminal by your government on any given day.
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 11:51
Would everyone be happier if it was an open system that anyone could use?
I for one would be quiet happy if there was a quick check I could do against someone that given say their Driver's license number would return their photo, and given their finger print their driver's license photo so that if they didn't match I could go "eh?".
Don't just give that power to the police. Give it to my bank, so that someone else can't access my accounts faking being me. Give it to the landlords so they can go "um, you owe two grand to your last landlord...". Give it to my local liquor store and bar.
Everyone.
Fantastic idea. Surely if it is an aid to help our publicly funded police to sort the wheat from the chaff, the good guys from the bad guys, it must be a good thing.
Surely if we as a society are expected to behave ourselves, we could also help to police ourselves (or others). All the good law abiding citizens, the good guys, (myself included) with no current criminal convictions can spend their spare time sifting through the database collection picking out the details of all the people who are the bad guys. Then we can go around pointing them out to make it easier for the underfunded and undermanned police to arrest and jail all the bad guys.
In a short amount of time all the bad guys will be in jail and the world will be safe because it will only be us 'good guys' on the streets and we won't need the police, government, or any laws because we would never break them.
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 12:02
They'll give you ID and a phone number to call (or you look up the number yourself).
You're always allowed to check the ID of any authority, any time, any where. But... unless you are a cop yourself don't go pushing "your reciprocal rights". You don't have 'em. It's a great way to piss off the police and it's about that point your life gets slightly more miserable with every sentence you start.
So even though I have some rights, if I try to exercise them I could end up getting mucked around, and my life made more difficult because I won't meekly comply with every new rule.
So your government has a police force that can detain and harass me at any time, more so if I don't agree with what they are telling me to do, even if I am not a criminal and their database and the details I give prove I've done nothing wrong?
Just because they say jump, and I don't say "how high"?
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 12:14
We can, you can't... :nya::nya::nya: And your taxes go to the dole bludging gang bangers...
Do I have to have a criminal conviction to become a dole bludger? I'm not convinced that I want to be associated with any form of gang, but I like the idea of not working for my money.
Are there extra grants available to me if I did have a conviction and gang association? What about if I was from a certain ethnic background that the government feels needs extra funding based on race, because they have a higher proportion of lazy asses who can't be f&*ked getting off their asses to work hard and create a decent life for themselves.
Now that I think about it, it would probably be better on a sickness benefit.
That way you wouldn't get harassed every few months to go to a job interview. Plus you could probably get some sort of prescription from the doctor to ease your pain, ( real or imagined, physical or emotional ) and just zone out at home, safe in your house (government paying your mortgage) away from all the crims out there on the road.
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 12:23
Youve' done 'nothing wrong' and the cop's meant to 'know' that without any checks??
So who is going to provide you with a finger-print scanner and data-base to check the prints against?
(Otherwise how WOULD you know if it was a criminal intent on burgling your place??)
But nice troll anyway!!
I realise the police aren't mind readers, which is why I don't mind stopping to give my details. Especially since I am not a criminal.
But I'm not a mind reader, which is why the police shouldn't mind giving their details. Especially if they are not criminals.
Is there any reason the police officer could not place their finger in their own fingerprint scanner? It wouldn't make sense for the public to have to pay for another database and another finger print scanning system when there is already one they have paid for that the police use.
I could listen to any details coming back over the 'tax-paid-for' radio. I would assume that there wouldn't be a match (much like myself) because their fingerprints aren't in the database, because they haven't committed a crime. I would be quite happy to let them go about their business.
ManDownUnder
2nd July 2007, 12:50
So even though I have some rights, if I try to exercise them I could end up getting mucked around, and my life made more difficult because I won't meekly comply with every new rule.
So your government has a police force that can detain and harass me at any time, more so if I don't agree with what they are telling me to do, even if I am not a criminal and their database and the details I give prove I've done nothing wrong?
Just because they say jump, and I don't say "how high"?
No - my point is you DON'T have the right to ask for the Police Officer's name address etc etc etc. Walk in their shoes for a secong. A bad bastard, known for "exacting revenge:" on those he doesn't like is stopped at a check point... get's the name and address of the Police Officer then stops by later that night with a 12 gauge.
Good move.
The cops need your details in the course of their duties. It's their job to do stuff that involves tracking people and making sure they can be contacted or found.
I'm guessing that's not a prerequisite for your job (or personal life...).
Correct me if I'm wrong...
ManDownUnder
2nd July 2007, 12:51
I realise the police aren't mind readers, which is why I don't mind stopping to give my details. Especially since I am not a criminal.
But I'm not a mind reader, which is why the police shouldn't mind giving their details. Especially if they are not criminals.
Is there any reason the police officer could not place their finger in their own fingerprint scanner? It wouldn't make sense for the public to have to pay for another database and another finger print scanning system when there is already one they have paid for that the police use.
I could listen to any details coming back over the 'tax-paid-for' radio. I would assume that there wouldn't be a match (much like myself) because their fingerprints aren't in the database, because they haven't committed a crime. I would be quite happy to let them go about their business.
Na mate - now you're being a clown...
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 13:02
If I was being a clown, I would be wearing big shoes, a red nose and be getting caught on camera in par-liar-ment sleeping, swearing and giving the finger to people, all while being paid in excess of $2000 a week, plus expenses.
I like the police, I just f%^cking hate all those unelected politicians and the dumb-ass laws they come up with.
ManDownUnder
2nd July 2007, 13:04
If I was being a clown, I would be wearing big shoes, a red nose and be getting caught on camera in par-liar-ment sleeping, swearing and giving the finger to people, all while being paid in excess of $2000 a week, plus expenses.
I like the police, I just f%^cking hate all those unelected politicians and the dumb-ass laws they come up with.
LOL fair call.
Problem is I think there's a little more background you need to the laws before you go slating them as unfair.
Ask any of the Police in here why it's a dumb idea to hand out their identity to anyone. I think you'll find they're not on the electoral roll, in the phone book or in a number of other public documents... and all for good reason. So they and their families can sleep at night.
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 13:06
Ixion sent a link to the site where you can make submissions about changes to the policing act. You get to type down everything that's on your mind, and then it says to click on the submit button at the bottom of the page...
but wait for it,.... there is no button.
ManDownUnder
2nd July 2007, 13:12
Ixion sent a link to the site where you can make submissions about changes to the policing act. You get to type down everything that's on your mind, and then it says to click on the submit button at the bottom of the page...
but wait for it,.... there is no button.
What's the link?
Deviant Esq
2nd July 2007, 13:27
(thanks to the heal-prick records taken from babies born in New Zealand)
Nobody picked this this little gem from Hitcher? Come on, got to take every opportunity you get! Sorry Hitch, but if the general populace can get nabbed for the occasional innocent slip... I know you know it's heel, just thought I'd dig mine in! :whistle:
The fingerprinting thing? What a debate. Personally I agree with Scumdog and the others' point of view. Don't be a conspiricy theorist or a doomsayer, woe is me, stand up for the little man... the job the Police do I wouldn't wish on anyone. They don't have my fingerprints on file, but even if they did I wouldn't be worried about it. They won't be using the roadside print machine on me anyway even if they do pull me over - I always carry my licence - so why would I care? Anything that gives the Police a higher chance of reprimanding real criminals faster without sacrificing any of my rights (I don't believe this does since I doubt I'll be required to thumb print anyway as I mentioned above) gets my vote. The police will then have more time to take care of the things we really hate - P making a mess of our country, drunk drivers killing us, etc.
Deviant Esq
2nd July 2007, 13:32
If I was being a clown, I would be wearing big shoes, a red nose and be getting caught on camera in par-liar-ment sleeping, swearing and giving the finger to people, all while being paid in excess of $2000 a week, plus expenses.
I like the police, I just f%^cking hate all those unelected politicians and the dumb-ass laws they come up with.
LOL, hit the nail square on the head! The amount of bills that get pushed through that practically the whole country disagrees with... Sue Bradford anybody? Definitely earned bling for that post mate.
avgas
2nd July 2007, 13:52
I think everyones fingerprint should be on system. I wear gloves.
Ixion sent a link to the site where you can make submissions about changes to the policing act. You get to type down everything that's on your mind, and then it says to click on the submit button at the bottom of the page...
but wait for it,.... there is no button.
Its like trying to complain about benefit fraud in NZ.......do a Google and see how little info there is on it. Even on the winz site there is nothing.
Are there extra grants available to me if I did have a conviction and gang association? What about if I was from a certain ethnic background that the government feels needs extra funding based on race, because they have a higher proportion of lazy asses who can't be f&*ked getting off their asses to work hard and create a decent life for themselves.
Thats the artists benefit/scholarship your talking about. Contact the local Winz office. 50K a year ok to you?
Patrick
2nd July 2007, 14:01
Do I have to have a criminal conviction to become a dole bludger?
Huh???
If I was being a clown, I would be wearing big shoes, a red nose and be getting caught on camera in par-liar-ment sleeping, swearing and giving the finger to people, all while being paid in excess of $2000 a week, plus expenses.
I like the police, I just f%^cking hate all those unelected politicians and the dumb-ass laws they come up with.
From rambling posts to an absolute pearler...!!!
Ixion sent a link to the site where you can make submissions about changes to the policing act. You get to type down everything that's on your mind, and then it says to click on the submit button at the bottom of the page...
but wait for it,.... there is no button.
Bummer... but I laughed when I read this one... funny... (seriously....!!!)
They won't be using the roadside print machine on me anyway even if they do pull me over - I always carry my licence - so why would I care? Anything that gives the Police a higher chance of reprimanding real criminals faster without sacrificing any of my rights (I don't believe this does since I doubt I'll be required to thumb print anyway as I mentioned above) gets my vote. The police will then have more time to take care of the things we really hate - P making a mess of our country, drunk drivers killing us, etc.
As far as I know Devo, they might put yours through on the off chance that your prints have been located at some crime scene, somewhere, sometime... but being a cleanskin, there were no matches... until now?
But that is our business, that of locating and catching crooks. Some on here think chicken little is running amok but all it really is, is another tool to catch bad guys, nothing more, no conspiracy theory, nada.....
craigs288
2nd July 2007, 15:17
Thats the artists benefit/scholarship your talking about. Contact the local Winz office. 50K a year ok to you?
50K sounds good. Do I need to have any evidence of artistic ability though?
Mind you, by the time they take out my child support, it will be equivalent to the pittance I earn now
spudchucka
2nd July 2007, 16:11
If I was pulled over at a checkpoint and the officer checked my WOF and Rego, Driver's Licence and ask me to breathe my name and address into the breathalyser, and then they also want me to provide finger prints, do I have the right to ask the officer to provide me with similar details.
I mean, if I am expected to front up with all those personal details when I have obviously done nothing wrong, obviously I am not a criminal. But the police aren't mind readers and a criminal would lie.
But I'm not a mind reader either and how do I know it is really a police officer, when it could be a criminal posing as a police officer to try and steal my identity, or gain information to aid them for a later burgling of my property.
If the police officer had nothing to hide then they wouldn't have any problem providing me with all their details, like the ones they expect from me. They might feel I am invading their privacy. But are they not like the government ministers and all other government employees. Paid for by my taxes and employed to serve me and all other tax paying New Zealanders. I would be asking an employee of mine to provide their personal details. It would have nothing to do with whether they have committed a crime or plan to in the future. I'm just trying to build a database of all my police that I employ.
1: The Land Transport Act says that if you are a driver of a motor vehicle on a road then you have to provide those details when requested.
2: There is no legislation that requires the police officer that is dealing with you to provide their personal details.
3: By all means ask but don't be offended when are politely told to go get f%$ked.
spudchucka
2nd July 2007, 16:18
What's the link?
http://www.policeact.govt.nz/consultation/
civil
2nd July 2007, 20:18
However you need to realsie that by 'Driving' you are doing a criminal act, otherwise you would not need a 'licence' now would you?
LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
So can anyone see why it is you need a Licence to Drive?
Also Spud, when you pull me over and ask for my name, do you want my legal or lawful name? There is a difference so which one do you want?
spudchucka
2nd July 2007, 21:38
So can anyone see why it is you need a Licence to Drive?
Also Spud, when you pull me over and ask for my name, do you want my legal or lawful name? There is a difference so which one do you want?
1: Land Transport Act 1998, Section 5(1)(a).
2: I don't want your name, or your phone number either so quit hitting on me ya weirdo!
roogazza
3rd July 2007, 09:54
Oh shit ! I just remembered, we took each others fingerprints at the college in 1972 !!!!!!!!!!!! Dam ! Gaz. :shit::shit::shit:
Patrick
3rd July 2007, 17:53
Oh shit ! I just remembered, we took each others fingerprints at the college in 1972 !!!!!!!!!!!! Dam ! Gaz. :shit::shit::shit:
We have been looking for ya since...
davereid
4th July 2007, 14:14
Seeing as we all have nothing to fear from fingerprinting, its all just paranoia, and it just makes thinks easier for the police, who are only doing their job, heres an idea to save even more time and money. Don't need a scanner, don't need a PDA, easy as.
Grahameeboy
4th July 2007, 14:26
LOL, hit the nail square on the head! The amount of bills that get pushed through that practically the whole country disagrees with... Sue Bradford anybody? Definitely earned bling for that post mate.
Funny how people don't agree with laws but will break them when it suits them....doesn't mean that the Law is wrong just because people don't agree with it.
Live Life, Dont Control Life.
davereid
4th July 2007, 20:50
Another great idea - why don't we fingerprint all drinkers when they go to the pub, in case they cause trouble on the way home ?
Aww shit, they are already doing it...
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=22277&in_page_id=34
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.