UK cops to trial public fingerprinting
By Darren Murph 
posted Nov 22nd 2006 10:32AM
posted Nov 22nd 2006 10:32AM
If you just so happen to live across the pond, and have been staying out from behind bars thanks to your clever facade and charming manipulations, things are about to get a whole lot tougher. Over the next year, pilot projects in "Essex, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, North Wales, Northamptonshire, West Midlands, West Yorkshire," and other various locales will place portable biometric scanners in the hands of police. The backers hope that giving the boys in blue quick, handy access to "6.5 million fingerprints" will land more sly criminals in jail than are currently being sniffed out. According to reports, around "60 percent" of suspects are giving out entirely false identities while out and about, but considering how immensely difficult it is to alter that telltale print, British cops could be rolling quite a few more perpetrators than usual back to the precincts. Interestingly enough, suspects can only be scanned "after giving permission," which isn't likely to happen to any sane, sober, and halfway intelligent crook. Nevertheless, "project Lantern" should kick off in Beds real soon, arming contemporary cops with "PDA-like" scanners to patrol the streets and (hopefully) curb the frequency in which those oh-so-susceptible ATMs are being violated (and emptied).
To fake your finger prints you will need the following household items;
- Super Glue
- Bottle cap
- Digital camera
- Transparency slide
- Laser printer
- Wood glue
- Theatrical glue
- Semi rotting corps hand
....
step 1...
I Want a 60 gig ps3 May you send me one oh great ONE!!!!!
What a suprise, yet another way of infringing on innocent peoples lives.
if you're innocent then there's nothing to worry about, these scanners read data and compare to the database they have, if you're not in the database then you have nothing to worry about, the fingerprint they read is not stored
and if you are an innocent person, wouldn't you feel better that more criminals are being found out and arrested using this method rather than them just pretending they're someone else and walking free?
It would not surprise me when these devices also 'log' any prints when scanned. This way innocent people are willing to have their print scanned (knowing they are innocent), but have their print being logged into the DB as well.
Collecting negative prints (read, positive for the citizen) is becoming massive, while positive prints (read, of the crooks) is not likely to happen (as the article stated).
Having scanners in schools for the children is one (bad) thing, but equipping mister copper on every corner with such power is astonishing.
- Unomi -
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.
Amen Chocolate Starfish, A-men.
Before I add this comment, I want to make it very clear: I am NOT trying to start a flame war, so please don't even try to start it...
Personally, I have no problem giving my fingerprints to the authorities. I'm a law abiding citizen (99% of the time I don't even speed while driving!) and I have nothing to hide. What difference does it make if the Bobbies (or here in the states, "Cops") have my 'prints? They may be able to gain access to my new, non-existent Thinkpad, but that's about all I can think of.
This technology is used to catch criminals, not entrap your average citizen.
Yet.
"I have no problem giving my fingerprints to the authorities"
Well, the problem is that people with the attitude that such a "minor" invasion of privacy is no problem for them seem to think that everyone else should share their desire to a life without liberty, or be willing to face the "minor inconvenience" of arbitrary, though "temporary, of course, sir", detention, "for your own safety, sir", while "we verify some things".
Live free or die.
what kind of madness is this??
I think the bigger point here is that they can only take innocent people's finger prints.
For the law to be anything other than a "big brother, keep tabs on the poeple not committing crimes" measure, they needed to include a probable cause provision and no logging of prints through the devices.
Besides, my finger prints are not on a database, and if they print me, I'm giving a false identity. Chaos and corrupt data are good ways to make a database useless.
Before you all start shouting and screaming, do not take this at complete face value - There is more to the story that Engadget decided to miss out.
The scanning of fingerprints is VOLUNTARY - You dont have to let them scan your finger. If you're innocent, you don't have to waste your time trying to prove it. Also, the prints are not held, logged, or assigned to any names if you arent already on the system - this was made clear, and is independently verfied by other groups.
And another slight thing, its actually mainly intended for stopping DRIVERS not passers by. All car thieves, banned drivers, etc, will already be on the system so will be identified - general public wont be on there, have no warrant and so be free to carry on.
Read a little more before you get all paranoid and hissy.
It's voluntary during this trial period. Assuming they decide the trial is succesful, will the next, more permanent, iteration be so lenient?
I think what most people are missing fromt the article (if they read it) is that you have already either done something wrong or the police have reasonable suspicion that you are up to something. (I am making some assumptions here based on my limited knowledge of Canadian law.) The police have to have a reason to arrest you. This is to prevent people from going to the police station much like a road side breathalyzer.
"If the driver does not convince police he is giving them a correct name, they will fingerprint him and verify his identity on the spot, instead of taking him to the police station."
"Currently an officer has to arrest a person and take them to a custody suite to fingerprint them."
I think that what the supporters of this are missing is that it's OK to be paranoid. Say what you will about permissions or intent or whatnot, you are correct.
But now that people like you have allowed this technology to come into use, the hard part is allready done. Do you think that at any time Blair decides he needs to perform another trick for Bush to get a pat on the head it will be any problem now at all to impliment the more aggressive and infringing policies regarding the use of such technology?
What was that? You say you trust your government?
Blair hasn't been prime minister for a while actually, David Cameron's in charge now.
"if you're innocent then there's nothing to worry about"
That's written above the gates at Guantanamo Bay, right?
These times are a bad time for the Britons.
I would honestly rather live in a society without speed cameras, camera-lights, public fingerprinting, and the likes with someone dying once in awhile than in the big brother society we are building.
We're trying to prevent everything bad in the world, but in order to prevent a relatively small percentage of crimes, we are all giving up a large percentage of our rights. It's a case of diminished returns. For every right you give up, we're seeing less and less benefit from it. At some point, you have to put your foot down.
Any information you give to a police officer is "voluntary" until you are under arrest. I would recommend that everyone keeps this in mind when dealing with the fuzz!
Orwell would be proud!
by the way its not vonlantary as if you decline you can be arrested and taken to the station and then have your prints done there. According to the UK news anyway.
I think you mean public fingering... I thought the limeys are into that stuff?