Are you pro or anti this?

[samuel23]

The police are getting set to be able to use the national identity data base to cross match finger prints.
Some people are concerned about the police going 'fishing' for finger print matches, whilst others are worried that it is one step closer to a 'big brother' world.
So what do you think? Is it for the greater good or are the police just trying to raise their clear-up rate?

[Slim Shady]

if you aint got nothing to hide then who cares??!!

[johnny37]

If you aint done nuffink wrong why should you be worried? I am all for extra id including DNA to track down wrongdoers. Even murderers and rapists from years ago who thought they had got away with it have been tracked down in this way.

[samuel23]

My point exactly Slim ~ but there will doubtless be those that will shout infringement of civil liberties or abuse of human rights.
I'm interested to see what the balance of opinion will be.

[Slim Shady]

They are just nobs who love a moan about anything or people who have obvioulsy got something to be worried about ay!!

[SimonGent]

Of course the phrase "raise their clear-up rate" is another way of saying "solve outstanding crimes on behalf of teh vcitims"...

[samuel23]

OK ~ so now you are all wondering why conflicting views get the same three stars.
I did ask what people thought and whether they are pro or anti. I have my own views and would like to hear from others.
SimonGent ~ A rose by any other name etc. If they truly get the right person for the right crime then that's good news, HOWEVER ........ if they made an error think about this - would you be happy to be the one arrested and put on trial?

[Slim Shady]

Mani - How would it ever effect you though if you have never done anything wrong, i don't get it?!!?

[SimonGent]

I was being a little bit tongue in cheek, but I think the debate is far more complicated than either view of "if you've done nothing wrong" or "I don't like big brother".

I don't believe that anybody has been convicted purely on fingerprint evidence; however a lot of people have been convicted because their fingerprints were found at a scene of crime which has allowed further investigation and evidence to show they were responsible. Likewise there are people that have arrested ad then released with no further action being taken - the perception of which is that it was a wrong arrest but which in reality is part of the process of arrest. Generally arrest if for investigation - if it weren't the case then people would be taken straight to court and never to a police station. Unfortunately arrest is necessary to questions people, ask them to account for their actions which appear to be criminal, but also to give them their chance to speak and give an explanation.

I support anyone's desire for freedom and human rights, but in a balanced society we have to have a balanced view that accepts that if people break the law and commit crimes against each other then sometimes people will get arrested and released, or charged and found not guilty. That is the beauty of our legal system and one that shows that we're not yet in a police state. People get found not guilty, people get released, and there are checks on the system. It's not always popular, mistake happen 9everybody's human) and the press love a good story.

I still come back to the view that a more sophisticated approach is needed than simply "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" or "I don't like big brother."

[Supernick]

I kind of sit on the fence with this one. 'Nothing to Hide' is too simplistic. If I've got nothing to hide, then is objectionable for the state to root through my house/bank accounts etc without warning? Can my medical records and any councelling/psychological help, be stored on a database for future reference? Surely that would all be fine. But I do feel strongly about my cicil liberties and personal freedom, and so I would object to any of the above.

[Miss Inquiry]

Nothing to hide, you can happily take my prints.
Having to give them when you enter America on holiday, I am sure they are already on a database somewhere anyhow.

[Hammer Head]

I'm pretty sure that none of you have anything to hide in your houses, but how would you like me snooping about in your house without your knowledge. This 'if you've got nothing to hide, why worry' thing only encourages this corrupt and useless government to further snoop into our private lives. This measure is just the thin end of the wedge.

[Scylax]

Finger-prints are not infallibly conclusive, and 'false
positives' could lead to innocent people being suspected,
and 'there is no smoke without fire', is there ? Further,
mud sticks, esp. odious mud.
Were proof of identity based on 'iris-print recognition'
there would be less concern, since these can not be left
at the scene of a crime, and no wrongful suspicions
or allegations can arise.

[naomi24]

I have nothing to hide, but this government is intruding into our lives too much. Council snoopers coming into our homes and taking pictures to assess council tax, the suggestion of centralising all our records, even our private medical records and tax information, tracking devices in our cars to follow our every move, bin police going down our trash cans to make sure we've put the correct rubbish in them - where will it all end? I can only think in a Big Brother state, and that's scary.

[Oneeyedvic]

The prints will be stored on a computer database.

If you can show me one (just one) IT project that this government have instigated that works correctly and was on budget and most importantly completely secure then I will eat my hat.

[samuel23]

Yeah, it's a scary thought that we are being monitored and watched and our details held on ever expanding data bases ~ but who voted the government in ~ and not just the once either?
The finger of blame lies with US the voting public, happy to be led round by the nose.

[johnny37]

What about the civil liberties, personal freedom and human rights of the victimsof unsolved crime? Its ridiculous to say that the police have no right to scan a database of fingerprints. You might as well say credit reference agencies have no right to hold and divulge financial informatkion about you? That OK is it but not OK for someone who might have committed armed robbery?

[sunnyday2d]

how nice to see such blind faith in our
police / goverments ability to run an i.t system.
and get it right.

or just simplistic naivety.