Fingerprints

[JimBob]

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

[yod]

why would you mind? got something to hide?

[hellnback]

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]

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 . . .

[JimBob]

why would you mind? got something to hide?

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.

[yod]

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]

why would you mind? got something to hide?

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]

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.

[yod]

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.

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]

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]

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 .......

........... and you thought you were innocent ...........

[janno]

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?

[Paul in NZ]

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..

[yod]

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]

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).