Listening to Radio 4 this morning, the Police Officer controlling the scheme said that the fingerprints of offenders would be disposed after 24 hours. But what if Blair and co exploit this? They are already putting in force legislation for ID cards and fingerprints could also be used to register people..you work the rest out.
2006-11-21 23:51:19 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yeah... why stop there. Let's DNA profile them too.
2006-11-21 23:54:26 · answer #1 · answered by Kezzi T 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To take the 'roadside fingerprinting' which you heard about this morning first:
The roadside check is very much a screening check. The prints obtained on these machines would simply not be good enough to try to keep for evidential purposes. The idea is that if you are stopped for a traffic offence and there are doubts as to your identity then you could give your fingerprint(s) which would be checked against the database to see if you are a disqualified driver / wanted for a crime etc. You see, not everyone tells the truth to the police about who they are etc.....
Now, although everyone has unique fingerprints we all have certain characteristics in common - loops, whorls and tents to name but three. There is the possibility that your print may be similar to a criminal's and that checking the restricted amount of data that the roadside machines will be able to transmit will give a false positive result. However, police officers have discretion and good sense, and this doesn't automatically mean that they'll arrest you unless they have good reason to think you're telling porkies!
Now, there are lots more issues about the taking of fingerprints, DNA and photographs on arrest which ARE then kept, even if no action is taken against you. Although I am a police officer I am very much against this - and have said so in other answers that I have given on the subject.
So no, I'm not worried in the slightest about these roadside checks and you have nothing to fear, but it doesn't mean that I agree with other things that are going on.
Cheers and take care.
2006-11-22 00:11:27 · answer #2 · answered by Hilary Y 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's all about the world government that is being established.If your not in the system,you don't exist.
IF mandatory fingerprinting is established,you can bet there will be a few ways to keep them on file longer than 24 hrs.
Maybe a clerk will forget to delete them(accidentally of course) or maybe you get stopped again by another police officer within the 24 hr. period and that might be enough to establish a pattern about you and then your prints could be made a permanent record.
As for catching a criminal-just remember that your DNA and fingerprints could be used to help solve a crime that has no evidence of who committed the crime by inserting yours into the evidence files. But we KNOW the gov't. wouldn't do that!
2006-11-22 01:50:36 · answer #3 · answered by Ralph T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you saying 4 times in in a month and has 2 DUIs in your state? Plus DWLR. Time will depend on the courts and what the charges are. He will for sure not see the light of day for a very long time. Odds are they are going to take his license away for many many years. It could be 10 if he has not been classed as a habitual offender already. If he has been they may take it permanently. Now his jail time is jail time. But you can add in huge fines. Then add in that since he has a feloney he is going to find work difficult. With a bit less the lawyer could continue the case. That would give him time to do a voluntary alchohol awareness program, AA, have an alcohol assessment done, check into rehab or something like that. Worth exploring as the judge might take it a tad easier on him. But with all his stuff..... he is toast. Jail, no license, no money, and never be able to provide work wise for you if you later have a family. Time for you to step away.
2016-05-22 13:49:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see a problem in fingerprint or DNA databases. In the US, we have to give up our prints for all kinds of reasons - to get a driver's license, to buy a house, and to record various legal documents. Some banks require it when opening an account, and some supermarkets are experimenting with fingerprint systems that let you register your credit card with them, and then in future pay just by scanning your fingerprint at the checkout.
The problem lies in misuse of the information. The DMV in Wales has been misused many times by police 'doing a favor' for someone, like looking up the number plate of they guy they believe their wife is cheating with. It's the abuse that you have to worry about, not the records themselves.
2006-11-22 01:36:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Control the masses eh. The world is going **** up, there's too many of them to control when it does, so let's shut the gate before the horse bolts.
Just another in a long line of gathered information that can be used for the above, but don't protest about it, you will be arrested.
what can I say, we have done it to ourselves, should have acted on it a long time ago, a bit like the ozone. There were those who could see it coming, they tried to warn people, but they would not listen, or they could not listen because their words could not be heard over the deception of the media. Trying to get people motivated towards saving themselves is like trying to stop a lemming jumping to it's death.
2006-11-22 00:21:55 · answer #6 · answered by Spoonraker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the time unless it is a felony they do not fingerprint you, in most states, so if you have commit ed a felony then your fingerprints will be on file as a permanent record.
2006-11-22 00:14:08 · answer #7 · answered by golden rider 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have nothing to hide and therefore have no problem with the ID cards or my finger prints being logged forever. The only thing I have a problem with is paying for it. If they are making it a compulsorary thing then it should be supplied free of charge.
Think of the upside to this... imagine you needed a blood donor or kidney donor, hospitals would then know who to ask if they are allowed access to this information. If someone has never had his/her prints taken by the police they may not be caught until they commit more than the first crime.
So yes, I believe information should be stored by authorities for the safety of those who have no intention of committing crimes.
2006-11-22 00:07:36 · answer #8 · answered by robdunf 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Large databases are not only useful to governments that don't like descent. They are also targets for criminals.
According the the government's watchdog, the Information Commissioner, it costs £40 to £75 to bribe a telephone engineer to give you someone's address. That information has been used, for example, by an abusive husband to track down and beat his ex-wife.
Information that can destroy your privacy should not be routinely gathered and stored.
2006-11-22 02:42:40 · answer #9 · answered by Manchester Blogger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe if we had a fingerprint on file of everyone applying for a Driver License, it would be much easier to arrest criminals.
2006-11-22 00:21:48 · answer #10 · answered by mimi 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why is everyone getting so upset by this? If someone is stopped and they are either wanted for another crime or using false information, why not find this out? These are the people who are likely to crash into you without insurance and leave you and your family knackered without any hope for compensation! Why protect the criminal more and more? I do not understand the political correctness that always favours the aggressor and not the victim.
2006-11-22 00:05:57 · answer #11 · answered by davespnr 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋