ChatterBank3 mins ago
Police taking prints
Surely the law would need amending to enable this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6170070. stm
Is this a step too far? now the police have an excuse to take fingerprint data whenever they feel like it, I believe this also applies to motorists. Can the person refuse? Looks like Orwellian Britain is getting ever closer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6170070. stm
Is this a step too far? now the police have an excuse to take fingerprint data whenever they feel like it, I believe this also applies to motorists. Can the person refuse? Looks like Orwellian Britain is getting ever closer.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would be described as instinctively libertarian I guess... so my automatic reaction to this news is that , along with the proposed new biometric ID cards, this is yet another and quite major step towards a Police State, with the Orwellian dystopia looming large.
Some of the stats quoted were interesting though... according to the article, some 60% of all drivers stopped (for arrestable offences?) gave false IDs.... this would certainly aid in establishing identity I suppose. and secondly that in order to establish ID police often had to take people to the station/cells, so a lot of time and effort was taken up in sorting out the ID... and again, these handheld devices might aid in that.
Have to see what else is mentioned about these things, but I remain very sceptical about there benefit.
Some of the stats quoted were interesting though... according to the article, some 60% of all drivers stopped (for arrestable offences?) gave false IDs.... this would certainly aid in establishing identity I suppose. and secondly that in order to establish ID police often had to take people to the station/cells, so a lot of time and effort was taken up in sorting out the ID... and again, these handheld devices might aid in that.
Have to see what else is mentioned about these things, but I remain very sceptical about there benefit.
This is not a 'right to fingerprint' as you seem to suggest. The police have not yet got the power to stop you and fingerprint you for no reason. This sort of outcry was the downfall of the whole 'stop and search' issue from the early days of the campaign aginst suspected drug pushers, vandals, hooligans and terrorists. As it stands if you are caught speeding you have broken the law. The taking of fingerprints (at this time it is not yet compulsory to agree to this) is supposed to be a measure to enable the police to check you out against a central register to see if you are who you say you are. If someone has stolen your car, this would help the police to get you your property back ~ a good thing. If the person being fingerprinted was a person that wasn't supposed to be driving because of earlier driving violations (e.g. drink driving etc) this is also a good thing. If the person fingerprinted was a wanted person, such as a murderer, paedophile, armed robber etc this is also a good thing. The problem arises when you are an innocent (but now you are not, because you have broken the law by speeding) person. As with biometric passports, identity cards and other forms of tracking people the central issue is who has access to the information and what it will be used for. If you hadn't broken the law by speeding you wouldn't be getting asked for fingerprints. Moral of this tale? Don't break the law!
Well yes from the very link you posted:
"I don't think we should be reassured by the fact that at the moment it's voluntary and at the moment they won't be recorded," he said.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem if there was no recording.
i.e. if you were stopped they could see if you were already on their database having had your prints taken in relation to an offence.
However given the change in the law with DNA records that was slipped though which permits the police to retain records of people not associated with an offence I'm not optimistic.
Doubtless the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" crew will be along shortly to tell us all how wet we are and how a few unsafe convictions are the price of liberty but I have to agree the sound of the clocks striking 13 is definately getting closer by the day
"I don't think we should be reassured by the fact that at the moment it's voluntary and at the moment they won't be recorded," he said.
Personally I wouldn't have a problem if there was no recording.
i.e. if you were stopped they could see if you were already on their database having had your prints taken in relation to an offence.
However given the change in the law with DNA records that was slipped though which permits the police to retain records of people not associated with an offence I'm not optimistic.
Doubtless the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" crew will be along shortly to tell us all how wet we are and how a few unsafe convictions are the price of liberty but I have to agree the sound of the clocks striking 13 is definately getting closer by the day
But samuel, they can stop you for no reason and fingerprint you, you do not have to have broken any law. Your comments on speeding are valid but that's only part of it. You only have to be stopped, not necessarily in a car and they can print you. Now I can see the value but the police love to capture fingerprints, I have personal experience of this, I have no convictions but was once arrested because of mis information, QED they have my DNA and prints, legally. A policemane on the news this morning admitted that you do have the right to refuse but if you do then they'll arrest you and you'll then be "processed", police state beckons methinks.
As I understand it a motorist can refuse to provide a print but this is likely to mean that they will have to go to the station to establish that the details the person has given are correct.
The fingerprints are not entered into a central database but are deleted each day. You can have the data removed from the scanner in front of you if you wish and the officer is obliged to tell you this once the identity has been confirmed.
Personally, if it makes it quicker to catch out people who are banned from driving and give false details at the roadside, I'm all for it. I suspect that the same people who moan about this sort of thing are the same people who complain that they never see a copper on the beat. Surely a time-saving measure such as this reduces much criticised police bureaucracy?
The fingerprints are not entered into a central database but are deleted each day. You can have the data removed from the scanner in front of you if you wish and the officer is obliged to tell you this once the identity has been confirmed.
Personally, if it makes it quicker to catch out people who are banned from driving and give false details at the roadside, I'm all for it. I suspect that the same people who moan about this sort of thing are the same people who complain that they never see a copper on the beat. Surely a time-saving measure such as this reduces much criticised police bureaucracy?
"... they can stop you for no reason and fingerprint you" - no they can't.
They have the right to ask you to put your finger on a scanner - on the basis that a print is not taken and *on the basis that* no records are kept, although I am totally against ID cards, I am very much for this legislation.
Personally, I think that it should be made 'compulsory' to give the print (in a similar way to a breathalyzer).
They have the right to ask you to put your finger on a scanner - on the basis that a print is not taken and *on the basis that* no records are kept, although I am totally against ID cards, I am very much for this legislation.
Personally, I think that it should be made 'compulsory' to give the print (in a similar way to a breathalyzer).
Hartley I'd go along with it if I beleived that they are to be erased. What assurances do we have that they are erased? I just don't trust the authorities with this kind of thing. As I said above the police love to capture and keep prints, DNA etc how long before a law is passed quietly to allow them to keep them, even if they don't already. The "Nothing to hide" argument is as flawed as ever.
If you are 'arrested' they have to have a valid reason. Police officers cannot just pick a person they don't like the look of and then arrest them for refusing to cooperate. If they were to do this, it would lead to charges of false arrest, infringement of civil liberties and human rights violations. The result would be an exponential increase in the police being sued for false arrest. Not something they want, or have the manpower or money to cope with. They may well request that you 'accompany them to the station' but if they did that they would have to give the desk sergeant a valid reason for bringing you in, and I don't think that the 'I didn't like the look of his jumper' scenario would cut much ice with the local magistrates.
There is another aspect to this. The Bible talks in the book of Revelation about a world system of control, where people are not allowed to buy or sell unless they have the "mark of the beast," only possible of course, with the advancing technology we see today.
However, because of the two threads on body & soul, "Have we got a soul" from Spurslady, and "Heaven & Hell" from me, which both ran to 129 and 160 answers respectively, I suspect that maybe I've already said enough on this aspect, and the usual subscribers may berate me for it.
However, because of the two threads on body & soul, "Have we got a soul" from Spurslady, and "Heaven & Hell" from me, which both ran to 129 and 160 answers respectively, I suspect that maybe I've already said enough on this aspect, and the usual subscribers may berate me for it.
That's a very naieve view samuel if you don't mind me saying so. The police DO stop people they don't like the look of, I thought pretty much everyone knew that, but apparently not.
I am very much against this for multiple reasons, freedom, Police State all of the usual ones, but also for other reasons.
Where I live now, I'm nice and average, it's a small close knit community, we help out at the local village fete, you get the idea. I was stopped by the local police officer the other day and asked to prodce my licence and that was it, they gave me a bit of paper and I took my documents into the local police station. End of. That police officer was not given details of my previous criminal offences by some nasty little handheld computer. I have reason to very much wish to leave my past behind me (I'm not a paedohpile, rapists etc before you all wonder), but do have serious criminal convictions which I would not like a local police officer privvy to if I have done nothing wrong, as my family and I have to live in this community and I believe that it would negatively impact on their lives. I think it will, where ex offenders live in a community such as ours, be a terrible step backwards in their rehabilitation, and I find it unacceptable that ones identity can be called into question when you may have done nothing wrong at all, just have been stopped in a routine check. Give a dog a bad name as the saying goes.
I have said I will not have an ID card, and I won't. Nor if this travesty becomes compulsary will I continue to live in the UK. I feel very strongly we ae being terrified into relinquishing all our fundamental rights to peace and privacy.
I am very much against this for multiple reasons, freedom, Police State all of the usual ones, but also for other reasons.
Where I live now, I'm nice and average, it's a small close knit community, we help out at the local village fete, you get the idea. I was stopped by the local police officer the other day and asked to prodce my licence and that was it, they gave me a bit of paper and I took my documents into the local police station. End of. That police officer was not given details of my previous criminal offences by some nasty little handheld computer. I have reason to very much wish to leave my past behind me (I'm not a paedohpile, rapists etc before you all wonder), but do have serious criminal convictions which I would not like a local police officer privvy to if I have done nothing wrong, as my family and I have to live in this community and I believe that it would negatively impact on their lives. I think it will, where ex offenders live in a community such as ours, be a terrible step backwards in their rehabilitation, and I find it unacceptable that ones identity can be called into question when you may have done nothing wrong at all, just have been stopped in a routine check. Give a dog a bad name as the saying goes.
I have said I will not have an ID card, and I won't. Nor if this travesty becomes compulsary will I continue to live in the UK. I feel very strongly we ae being terrified into relinquishing all our fundamental rights to peace and privacy.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
i have no issue with it, even tho i,ve had a checked past, police have more information on all of us and our whereabouts then what alot of you might think.
The fact of the matter is, if people did'nt break the law in the 1st place, be it some sort of so-called petty crime or illegal immigration, we would'nt be in this situation, i appreciate its all to easy to point the finger of blame at goverments etc, the fact is, crime is here to stay, and the immediate future suggest things are to get no better, someone has to take control of things, and if this is a step nearer solving crime etc, i'm all for it, its a shame its coming to this, but ''DO YOU'' have any better suggestions
The fact of the matter is, if people did'nt break the law in the 1st place, be it some sort of so-called petty crime or illegal immigration, we would'nt be in this situation, i appreciate its all to easy to point the finger of blame at goverments etc, the fact is, crime is here to stay, and the immediate future suggest things are to get no better, someone has to take control of things, and if this is a step nearer solving crime etc, i'm all for it, its a shame its coming to this, but ''DO YOU'' have any better suggestions
The uninsured motorist doesn't even come close to standing up here.
By the time the police stop you they know who the car is registerred to whether it has a valid tax disk, whether the owner has a policy aginst it and whether it has a valid MOT.
Why do you think the first question they ask is "Is this your car?"
If you're driving a vehicle they already have a gret hook into establishing if you're who you say you are.
This is much more useful to patrol officers on the street.
The thing is we used to have a "presumption of innocence" now we have the prospect of police officers stopping you and fingerprinting you because they don't like your face!
And before you launch into the desperate times, desperate methods spiel remember that your chances of being a victim of a crime are now at their lowest since at least 1981
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm #Crime
By the time the police stop you they know who the car is registerred to whether it has a valid tax disk, whether the owner has a policy aginst it and whether it has a valid MOT.
Why do you think the first question they ask is "Is this your car?"
If you're driving a vehicle they already have a gret hook into establishing if you're who you say you are.
This is much more useful to patrol officers on the street.
The thing is we used to have a "presumption of innocence" now we have the prospect of police officers stopping you and fingerprinting you because they don't like your face!
And before you launch into the desperate times, desperate methods spiel remember that your chances of being a victim of a crime are now at their lowest since at least 1981
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/sta_index.htm #Crime
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News12 mins ago
