Fingerprints

**spudchucka** · 28th June 2007, 13:23

Originally Posted by MWVT

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

Originally Posted by JimBob

As for identification I know who I am so all they have to do is ask.

Not everyone is as honest as you JimBob...

Originally Posted by Albino

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...

Originally Posted by janno

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...

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

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

Originally Posted by civil

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

Originally Posted by Albino

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

Originally Posted by Sanx

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

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

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

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

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 !!!!"

**spudchucka** · 28th June 2007, 13:55

Originally Posted by civil

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 !!!!"

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

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

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

Originally Posted by civil

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

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

"Warrant" not a "Warrent"

Applogies, My spelling is not up to the standard of Police recruits. Or is it?

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

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!