Fingerprints

**Biff** · 28th June 2007, 21:07

Originally Posted by candor

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

Originally Posted by Biff

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.

**Mom** · 28th June 2007, 21:35

Originally Posted by Jim2

[LEFT]Breath testing has done nothing to remove recidivist drunken drivers from our roads.

And patently not stopped the first time offenders either

Originally Posted by Jim2

Fingerprinting every NZ citizen will not reduce crime.

Neither will tougher sentences mate

Originally Posted by Mr Merde

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

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

**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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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...)

**spudchucka** · 29th June 2007, 06:54

Originally Posted by scumdog

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

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

Originally Posted by civil

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

Originally Posted by Hitcher

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....