My concern is that when fingerprints have been taken and used as part of criminal investigation and the suspect cleared either at trial or at a very much earlier stage these items might be prejudicial in the investigation of other offences.
Like it or not there have been cases of wrongful convictions or completely failed investigations just because the police jumped to conclusions based upon appearance, stereotyping, or maybe being known to the investigating officers through previous but unconnected investigations.
If you were a policeman and you had, say, four likely candidates for some offence then the very fact that one of those had their fingerprints on record, despite not being guilty of anything, then you might well much more interest in that person rather than take a more neutral stance and wait for what evidence you manage to turn up.
Wether it bothers you or not to have your own fingerprints on record, there is the principle that you should have the privacy you are entitled to have, the state does not have the right to assume that you may do something wrong and thus be justified in putting you in some sort of catalogue without good cause.
What are we looking to achieve? a DNA record, fingerprints, maybe even a list of associates who do have criminal records(after all it is known that criminals do associate so anyone doing so …)
The European convention on data protection clearly staes that governments must reveal upon request any information that the state holds upon them and to what purpose it is being held and if that information is not relevant it must be destroyed, holding fingerprints of law-abiding citizens without express purpose would fall foul of that law.
‘Thin end of the wedge’ type arguments are extremely relevant in a Europe in which a goodly chunk of it was so recently in the hands of organisations such as the STASI in East Germany.
We in Europe have experienced state gathering of information on its citizens, collecting fingerprints without just cause belongs to a certain mindset.
Its not just a case of what a fingerprint can or cannot be used for, its a limit to the boundaries of state control.
Actually I doubt that fingerprints on file, in and of itself, would have any bearing on a cop’s suspicions. A lot of people have had their fingerprints taken for any number of reasons other than alleged criminal offenses. In fact I suspect mine are still on file somewhere just because I worked for a particular state agency. Big deal.
With respect to the privacy issue - I just don’t see fingerprints as being an issue of privacy. They tell you absolutely nothing about me. You can’t tell my race, income, weight or anything else from fingerprints alone.
Actually lists of known associates are often kept, perhaps not formally but certainly informally. Indeed it would be the height of police incompentence to not know who, say, John Gotti used to hang out with.
There are really two issues emerging from this thread. The first is what information is legitimately kept after a person is acquitted of a crime, and the second is whether or not a big database of fingerprints is a bad thing.
With respect to the first issue, I would remind everyone that being acquitted is not the same as being found innocent. I would think it would be legitimate to keep everything about that person unless there were special circumstances that would dictate otherwise.
With respect to the fingerprint database, I’ve just not heard anything yet that scares me away from it.
Mr Norton,
I would like to inform you that being declared legally innocent doesn’t mean you didn’t do it either. So what?
At any rate, I don’t see how a national database of fingerprints could be used in some nefarious way right now. I don’t doubt, however, that if fingerprints are to become a form of identification(or even if fingerprint databases are to be gathered deliberately, like a census) then there’s no doubt that this would open up the door to all sorts of schemes. not that I normally pull up sci-fi movies to support an argument, but anyone who has seen gattaca will know what I mean. Given sufficient resources I bet I could make a fingerprint duplicator right now, complete by manufacturing a mold with which to make little substitute people’s fingerprints. Rub them on your forehead and you’ve got some nice skin oil to leave prints behind…on purpose, to ensure that someone get’s nabbed for it(whatever it is), which they will since we have this nifty database. Given that not everyone has an alibi 24 hours a day I think this could be a real problem.
Except that you are you, even when I am you.
I remember when I was visiting England some guys and I were discussing the number of video cameras in London (I never made it to London to witness them first hand, however). We made the joking remark from the point of the government, “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong then it shouldn’t matter that we’re recording you!” The issue of privacy, you see, isn’t about “getting away” with stuff, it is about the individual’s choice to relinquish information when s/he wants to.
SSN numbers are only a security problem because they are used incorrectly. SSN are often used like passwords, when really they are user names. SSN are essentially public knowledge, they are not secret. So why would a company use knowledge of a client’s SSN as proof of identity?
And erislover is correct. A national fingerprint database would destroy the value of fingerprint data, since there’s no way it could be kept secure. It could be used to verify the identity of a person standing in front of you…but not the identity of a person who left patterns of skin oils on a handgun. Same with DNA. OJ’s DNA was all over the crime scene. Did that prove he was guilty? Not to 12 jurors, since to them the presence of the DNA meant nothing since there were several ways the DNA could get there.
A fingerprint database could not be secure if it was used as a password system, since anybody could dig up your prints and duplicate them. A fingerprint is a name, not a password!
Any security system can be breached; any identification system can be falsified. Everyone working on such systems knows that. Anyone installing, implementing or using such systems knows that or at least should know that. A database of fingerprints, whether used for crime investigations or security, is just another tool and like anything else has the potential for abuse. As we move forward with this kind of technology, we should be very careful that reasonable caution does not get confused with xenophobia.
Fact of the matter is, in the US, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. True, just because you’re declared legally innocent doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. However, if a person is acquitted of a crime, his fingerprints, dna, etc. should be destroyed. They’ll never be able to take that person to trial again anyway for that particular crime (double jeopardy and all), so what’s the point in keeping it?
If a person is acquitted of a crime then I can only think of three things that could have happened:
He did it but got away with it;
He didn’t do it but somebody else did.
It was determined that no actual crime was committed (self defense).
In case # 2 you absolutely do not want to destroy any evidence because the case would presumably still be open. If someone else were ever accused of the crime it would be unfair to them that vital evidence implicating another person had been destroyed.
In cases #1 and #3 the accused would still be open to civil suites, and it would be unfair to the plaintiffs to have the evidence destroyed.
But really, the ugly little issue that this thread is all about is whether a person who has been accused of a crime should carry that accusation with him forever. (Standard IANAL disclaimer goes here.) I understand that an arrest record remains on file unless special circumstances require its destruction. Should it? If the case goes to trial should the trial records be kept no matter what the verdict?
And one more quick observation before I leave. One of the earliest ways of identifying a person was by their signature. I’m sure my signature is in many databases of one sort or another, as is everyone else’s, but that doesn’t seem to be a cause for alarm. Why is that? Signatures have a potential for abuse just like fingerprints. I suspect that the reason that we don’t worry about signatures is simply because they have been around for so long. We have come to understand their limitations and benefits, and we are happy to go right ahead using them, risks and all.
So let me say it again. Technology is presenting us with an enormous array of new things. We should be very careful about what we adopt, but we should especially careful that we don’t let reasonable prudence be swept away in a wave of xenophobia.
Well put, Bill. To phrase the question this way, my answer must be a resounding no. If you are accused of murder, and are later proven to be not guilty (which is something ENTIRELY different than innocent), would you want the specter of that accusation riding your back the rest of your life? Were you to be pulled over for, say, speeding, and while the cop was running your record that little detail pops up? How is that going to change the cop’s attitude toward you? I’d venture to say unfavorably.
I think anyone who is fingerprinted should have their prints recorded for good. The only people who have anything to fear are those who’ve done the wrong thing. Why should we protect the people who don’t respect our society enough to follow our rules?
On the other hand, I don’t support a DNA database because there is too much personal information contained in DNA. Not just who you are, but physical weaknesses and other information that could potentially be used against you.
Some people mentioned the possibility of fingerprints being used as a personal identification tool over the internet in future. I say - not likely. It’s too easy to steal a fingerprint sample. We’ve all heard horror stories about shady restaraunts that keep card copying machines to duplicate customer’s credit cards - what’s to stop one of those places collecting fingerprints from glasses and cutlery? In this world of digital enhancements, it’s not so far fetched, surely.