Fingerprints

[ManDownUnder]

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??

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]

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]

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]

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... 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.

[Grahameeboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.