Police to fingerprint on streets

This is just getting really scary now!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6170070.stm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Police to fingerprint on streets
Met Police officers
The Met Police is one of the forces trialling Lantern
Police across England and Wales are to begin taking fingerprints while on patrol using mobile electronic devices.

The portable gadgets - similar to a pocket PC and linked to a database of 6.5m prints - will enable officers to identify suspects within minutes.

Police say they will particularly help identify people using false identities, although fingerprints can be taken only if a person gives permission.

Ten forces, starting with Beds, will pilot the machines over the next year.

The equipment will be also distributed among the forces in Essex, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, North Wales, Northamptonshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire, as well as to British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police, over the next two months.

Combat false identities

Police Minister Tony McNulty said: "The new technology will speed up the time it takes for police to identify individuals at the roadside, enabling them to spend more time on the frontline and reducing any inconvenience for innocent members of the public."

Under the pilot, codenamed Lantern, police officers will be able to check the fingerprints from both index fingers of the suspect against a central computer database, with a response within a few minutes.


Green electronic fingerprint
It's a first to search a national database and get a response back in a couple of minutes
Chris Wheeler

"The handheld, capture device is little bigger than a PDA," said Chris Wheeler, head of fingerprint identification at the Police Information Technology Organisation PITO.

He continued: "Screening on the street means they [police] can check an identity and verify it.

"And if they verify it on the street and the person is currently not wanted by anyone but is known to the system for a reason - that is sufficient for fixed penalty notices."

Currently an officer has to arrest a person and take them to a custody suite to fingerprint them.

Electronic safeguards

Bedfordshire Police is the first force to rollout the trial.

The device will be used with the Automatic Number Plate Recognition team, who identify vehicles of interest.

If a vehicle is stopped, police will be able to identify the driver and passengers. At present about 60 per cent of drivers stopped do not give their true identity.

The device has an accuracy of 94-95% and will be used for identification purposes only.

It sends encrypted data to the national ID system using GPRS - a wireless system used by many mobile phones.

More than 6.5 million fingerprints are cross-referenced and sent back to the officer.

"It's a first to search a national database and get a response back in a couple of minutes," said Mr Wheeler.

The information on the device is encrypted and there are electronic safeguards to prevent misuse, if the machine was lost or stolen.

Screening device

Electronic "live scan" machines used in police stations remain the principal method for fingerprinting suspects for evidence.

Live scan machines have a 99.5% accuracy rate and are used in conjunction with a fingerprint expert.

"We have a national programme which will mean by the middle of January 2007 every custody suite in England and Wales and most in Scotland will have a live scan unit installed, " said Mr Wheeler.

He likened the mobile device to breathalysers used by officers on patrol.

"It's simply a screening device. It's the same as using a breathalyser on the street and using a calibrated one back at the station."

PITO provides technology such as the National Automated Fingerprint ID System, called Ident1, to the police.

I haven't been to the UK before but surely crime isn't so bad as to warrant these kinds of measures? With all the cameras, bio-metric ID cards etc. it seems the UK has all the equipment and policies prepared should it become a modern police state.:embarassed:

Reminds me of V for Vendetta.

And I can already think of a use for this system...

.. Excuse me officer can I please put my ex-'s fingerprint into the list of most wanted terrorists in the global database please ?

As a doctor I can get masses of information on patients. If I wanted to, I could (illegally) get masses of information on anyone in the UK, by saying that I needed it. Addresses, partners, dependants and all medical history.

I'm not alone, there are thousands of employees who are trusted with similar information. NO one seems to be concerned.

Similarly, as a doctor I am registered with a unique ID number.

What is the fear of police having information? Surely there is a massive difference between collecting information, and how that information is used.

That police are able to double check people's stories IMO is a good thing - criminals can't hide easily, and if somenoe is bieng looked for others can easily be discounted.

The only thing I'd mind is the inconvenience of having my fingerprints taken. And if they're kept on a database - so what? MI5 has better things to do than set me up.

V for vendetta had none of this technology. It was the mentality of the people that allowed this to occur.

~:smoking:

sounds like a good idea...

I don´t even know why the suspect has to agree to it.....surely if you are a suspect to a crime the police has the right to check your ID to make sure you really are who you say you are...

My fingerprints aren’t on any database and I intend to keep it that way, you never know what you might do in the future mmmo ha ha ha

Just the advance of technology.

At least it means any abuses are equally well documented.

Wouldn't it be much easier to solve crimes if everyone's DNA were recorded on a national database?

It would be even easier to prevent crimes if the police knew exactly what you were doing at each and every moment of time. All the time. Everywhere.

Quote:

---

V for vendetta had none of this technology. It was the mentality of the people that allowed this to occur.

---

...

Quote:

---

The only thing I'd mind is the inconvenience of having my fingerprints taken. And if they're kept on a database - so what? MI5 has better things to do than set me up.

---

Huh. So, I'm wondering when you lot are going to have cameras everywhere - in your homes, cars, lapel buttons, etc. After all, if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear, and this would help eradicate crime.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

It would be even easier to prevent crimes if the police knew exactly what you were doing at each and every moment of time. All the time. Everywhere.

---

Indeed having small gps trackers on people would also help, and it's not much of a bother. Maybe put a microphone on it too, and later with micronization a camera. Would prevent almost all crime, definately good and not even intrusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Maybe put a microphone on it too...

---

I think you're onto something there Tex.:beam:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6186348.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

...
Huh. So, I'm wondering when you lot are going to have cameras everywhere - in your homes, cars, lapel buttons, etc. After all, if you're doing nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear, and this would help eradicate crime.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I wonder how you make the jump from fingerprinting crime suspects to verify their identity to having cameras in your house....:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I wonder how you make the jump from fingerprinting crime suspects to verify their identity to having cameras in your house....:dizzy2:

---

Easily: it's all for your own good, because it will help prevent crime. Besides, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem ?

@ BigTex: :2thumbsup:

I can only say that this is what terrorists and the like want to cause, fear.
Apparently nobody sees, they're winning. And it seems they have almost won the match. Ofcourse the best thing you can do then is give them a free penalty without reason.

Sigh.

So let me get this straight. If you're stopped for a traffic offence in the US, the police don't try and find out your identity?

This just speeds up something that is done anyway.

We have driver's licenses - includes a picture and important info relating to driving.

Crazed Rabbit

There we go than. This isn't any different to the police looking at your driver's licence.

Au contraire (sp?)
The police can only find out info if you're driving - they can't demand a driver's license when you're not driving - and they can't access a whole bunch of information about you when you're not driving and commiting a infraction. They can't verify your identity when you're not driving.

This is just another step towards the all knowing gov't - how long before you must give your fingerprint?

Crazed Rabbit

Well, if you examine the article these scanners are solely to be used by traffic officers stopping motorists at this time.

How does this work unless the police have access to a database with everyone's prints? If you are not in the database, what then? Do they retain the print, even if you are not guilty of anything?

I missed this when I last read the article.

Quote:

---

At present about 60 per cent of drivers stopped do not give their true identity.

---

I'm calling ... on this one. I can't think of single person I know who hasn't been pulled over by cop at some point in their driving careers. None of these people would have supplied a false identity. It sounds like some trumped up figure to help justify this fingerprinting scheme.

All that proves is that you have law-abiding friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

All that proves is that you have law-abiding friends.

---

I know it's anecdotal evidence but I really cannot imagine that more than half the people pulled over by the cops provide false identities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Au contraire (sp?)
The police can only find out info if you're driving - they can't demand a driver's license when you're not driving - and they can't access a whole bunch of information about you when you're not driving and commiting a infraction. They can't verify your identity when you're not driving.

This is just another step towards the all knowing gov't - how long before you must give your fingerprint?

Crazed Rabbit

---

Crazed Rabbit, that isn't the case. There was a very famous case a few years back in which a man was arrested in Nevada for refusing to identify himself. His name was Hiibel. He took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the law he was arrested under violated the 4th and 5th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and the protections against self-incrimination. The USOC ruled against him in Hiibel v. 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada. In the most important part of the decision, the majority (5-4 with Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissenting - those darn liberal activist judges and their dissenting :wink:) found the following:

Quote:

---

Requiring the subject of an investigative detention to identify himself infringes neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

---

Essentially the court held that you can't claim a right to privacy and a protection against unreasonable searches for something which you willing provide publicly in other circumstances. In other words, if you've told your neighbor or anyone else your name, then you no longer are protected against having that information required by an asking police officer. :thumbsdown:

You can be arrested in the U.S., in states with such a law, for failing to identify yourself to authorities. You just think you live in a free country. It's been pounded into our heads since we were in kindergarten. The reality is much different than the rah-rah jingoism we've been spoonfed since we were born. :wink:

Yeah, I know about that case. I've watched the video of the lousy cop arresting him, then the cops going after his daughter.

It was a stupid and wrong decision, and I will give credit to the liberal members for dissenting.

I'm aware that what we live in is far from a truly free country - but I'm not giving up hope.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IRONxMortlock

I missed this when I last read the article.



I'm calling bullcrap on this one. I can't think of single person I know who hasn't been pulled over by cop at some point in their driving careers. None of these people would have supplied a false identity. It sounds like some trumped up figure to help justify this fingerprinting scheme.

---

That's 60% of the people who are stopped for driving a car wanted by the police...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I wonder how you make the jump from fingerprinting crime suspects to verify their identity to having cameras in your house....:dizzy2:

---

Simple. It's called a 'slippery slope' argument.

And CR, the article says the can only take the fingerprints if granted permission. Sounds almost less intrusive than a driver's license. It's not worrying me too much at this point.

Ajax