Fingerprints.

[bingybongy]

I have recently given my fingerprints for exclusion from a crime scene.
I was told the prints will only be kept all the time the case is active (or words to that effect)
The likleyhood of it ever being solved are probably about zero as it was hardly the crime of the week.
I have never been printed before and have led a law abiding life so I'm not expecting to get a knock on the door at dawn and to be arrested.
However am I being paranoid in not believing that the records will be destroyed and I will now have the prints on the system.
I was tempted to refuse but couldn't really bring myself to do it.

[DaveH23]

Why would you want them removed?

[darthmarmite]

Yeah I'm with Dave here, you have had them taken to exclude you as a suspect from the crime, surely if you have lead and continue to lead a law abiding life then the prints will only ever be used to absolve you of any wrongdoing if you have the unfortunate luck to be involved in an incident like this to begin with?

[Cold]

"If you've nothing to hide..."

It'll be a long process to have the records destroyed - and even then it may not actually happen despite assurances to the contrary.

[creampuff]

darthmarmite said:

Yeah I'm with Dave here, you have had them taken to exclude you as a suspect from the crime, surely if you have lead and continue to lead a law abiding life then the prints will only ever be used to absolve you of any wrongdoing if you have the unfortunate luck to be involved in an incident like this to begin with?

I've signed the official secrets act, had a security clearance, had a firearms licence etc etc. I've never been fingerprinted by the state and I don't want to be fingerprinted by the state and I don't want the state having my fingerprints. I think the concerns of the OP are quite reasonable.

Personally, like giving a DNA sample, I'd be inclined to decline being fingerprinted even if it meant inconvenience (i.e. taking longer to be eliminated from enquiries) at the time.

[Bigends]

Once the OP's prints have been eliminated from the enquiry theyre entitled to have them back or witness their destruction. They are taken for elimination purposes only and NOT for entering on some database.

I used to take dozens of sets over the years and would always ensure they were returned or destroyed

[98elise]

creampuff said:

darthmarmite said:

Yeah I'm with Dave here, you have had them taken to exclude you as a suspect from the crime, surely if you have lead and continue to lead a law abiding life then the prints will only ever be used to absolve you of any wrongdoing if you have the unfortunate luck to be involved in an incident like this to begin with?

I've signed the official secrets act, had a security clearance, had a firearms licence etc etc. I've never been fingerprinted by the state and I don't want to be fingerprinted by the state and I don't want the state having my fingerprints. I think the concerns of the OP are quite reasonable.

Personally, like giving a DNA sample, I'd be inclined to decline being fingerprinted even if it meant inconvenience (i.e. taking longer to be eliminated from enquiries) at the time.

If you ever fly to the states you won't get in without being fingerprinted.

Personally i can't see the issue. The state has lots of ways of identifying me, and i don't intend to carry out any major crimes so it gets a big fat "meh" from me.

I'd be happier if everyone was fingerprinted and dna taken from an early age, but I realise its not how everyone feels.

[bingybongy]

DaveH23 said:

Why would you want them removed?

Why would I not?

They have no reason to have them forever, so why would I be happy they have.
As for entering the USA, not going to happen, I'd rather go to Iran.

[BOF]

bingybongy said:

Why would I not?

They have no reason to have them forever, so why would I be happy they have.
As for entering the USA, not going to happen, I'd rather go to Iran.

Bet that's been recorded somewhere in Virginia!!!

BOF

[jshell]

98elise said:

I'd be happier if everyone was fingerprinted and dna taken from an early age, but I realise its not how everyone feels.

Let's hope you never attain a position of any power then.

[D1ckie]

Surely if everyone at birth had their DNA taken / finger prints recorded this would be a benefit.

I can't see any reason why people wouldn't want a record kept unless you have something to hide

[Dave Hedgehog]

jshell said:

98elise said:

I'd be happier if everyone was fingerprinted and dna taken from an early age, but I realise its not how everyone feels.

Let's hope you never attain a position of any power then.

it never ceases to amaze me that some people give zero value to their privacy, but then billions are happy to allow facebook and google



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[jshell]

D1ckie said:

Surely if everyone at birth had their DNA taken / finger prints recorded this would be a benefit.

I can't see any reason why people wouldn't want a record kept unless you have something to hide

Then all I can say is that you haven't thought things through at all.

[jshell]

Dave Hedgehog said:

jshell said:

98elise said:

I'd be happier if everyone was fingerprinted and dna taken from an early age, but I realise its not how everyone feels.

Let's hope you never attain a position of any power then.

it never ceases to amaze me that some people give zero value to their privacy, but then billions are happy to allow facebook and google



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[D1ckie]

jshell said:

D1ckie said:

Surely if everyone at birth had their DNA taken / finger prints recorded this would be a benefit.

I can't see any reason why people wouldn't want a record kept unless you have something to hide

Then all I can say is that you haven't thought things through at all.

Why?

[creampuff]

D1ckie said:

jshell said:

D1ckie said:

Surely if everyone at birth had their DNA taken / finger prints recorded this would be a benefit.

I can't see any reason why people wouldn't want a record kept unless you have something to hide

Then all I can say is that you haven't thought things through at all.

Why?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/04/7-reasons-why-ive-got-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-response-to-mass-surveillance/

https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-t...

[Derek Smith]

D1ckie said:

Surely if everyone at birth had their DNA taken / finger prints recorded this would be a benefit.

I can't see any reason why people wouldn't want a record kept unless you have something to hide

Have a quick read of the histories of various governments, including that of this country. Even if we accept the questionable premise that it is benign at the moment, there's nothing to suggest this will continue.

Also, look at how securely they protect data. Others will have a definition of you.

[anonymous-user]

D1ckie said:

Surely if everyone at birth had their DNA taken / finger prints recorded this would be a benefit.

what i find sad and not your question but how people don't challenge things and happily accept the states point of view as concrete.

http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-i...

Forensic DNA evidence is not infallible

one point
'We have found that it is relatively straightforward for an innocent person's DNA to be inadvertently transferred to surfaces that he or she has never come into contact with'

[Boosted LS1]

I remember when this was a country. I'm not sure when it became a state or what the difference is but 'a state' sounds more threatening to me.

Fingerprints are private, just like DNA and being an individual imo.

[bingybongy]

It appears I'm not alone in having reservations.
Oh well it's too late now.
Just as well I have nothing to hide.