Privacy group No2ID is calling for legal protections before the introduction of mobile fingerprint scanners next year. As we reported in May the National Policing Improvement Agency handed over £50m for mobile devices to police forces. These will allow officers to check fingerprints against the Police National Computer. A …
They won't get me to put my finger in that
Or you could use the fag lighter to burn your fingertip.
All the safeguard needed
is to be able to say "no" when they ask for your fingerprint.
If they want you to go to the station, ask why. If they can't answer (and you should get a statement on record that this is why, so you can sue for wrongful arrest), you should be allowed to go on your way.
Just because they say "please" doesn't mean it's asking. If you're allowed to say "no", it's asking.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Is that a subtle joke? There's something very familiar about that year.
...where do i get off this merry go round?
has the home office been indoctrinated by the stazi hard liners that thought shooting people was too good for them?
why not go the whole hog and lets tatoo a number on our fore arms and embed an rfid chip in everyone's brain stem, just incase they try to remove the number
whats wrong with nicking people and printing them under caution.... oh yeh they may get a solicitor to stick up for them
You can take my prints from my cold dead fingers
What exactly are the required criteria for the plod to be able to ask for your prints? Surely this is just another example of fishing by the supposedly wonderful, supposedly unarmed British bobby.
The most worrying thing now, is that the rest of Europe is beginning to take note of British liberty taking and following in the UK's footsteps.
I can imagine a number of now dead Europeans spinning in their graves with jealousy at the things the British gov' get away with!
Fingerprint scanners? Pure luxury! when I was in the Stasi , we had to make do with an old rubber hose full of lead, made my arm ache something chronic having to swing that!
Sad to say that the rozzers don't need suspicion or even a crime to demand your name, and refusal or suspicion of a false name is all the cause they need to demand fingerprints.
So being innocent of any crime and acting normally where no crime is being committed is not a defense against the UK rozzers.
Blairites sheer contempt for the ordinary person in the street in appalling, and EU standing by and letting it happen makes them no better.
I want clarification
Are we talking about random stops, doing some thing the cops don't like such as taking pis of big ben, or when they actually are detaining / arresting you for a valid reason .
if its for the first two your country is fucked. Next step is papers to travel. Sad you will see more freedoms in another country than your own.
My parents' generation
fought a long and bloody war against precisely this sort of obscenity.
And, in only a couple of weeks, we'll see the hypocrites who are stamping out our liberties pretending to "honour" the memory of our war dead, whilst conveniently forgetting the ideals of freedom for which they laid down their lives.
And they wonder why we, the public, have come to regard politicians with the same contempt they demonstrate for us?
How fast it was got a mention, but not the accuracy, more selective reporting from the gov't spin machine.
rozzer: i would like to take your fingerprints
citizen: i haven't broken any law, have i now?
rozzer: i would like to take your fingerprints before I have to take you into custody
citizen: have I broken some law I'm not aware of and what's the charge
rozzer: you are now resisting and i'm going to have to taze you to get your fingerprint
citizen: well it you're going to arrest me and take me into custody I'm not resisting
rozzer2: BLAM BLAM BLAM That'll teach those damn no2id yoof
rozzer: she was old enough to be your mum
rozzer2: hell, that was my mum
There IS a need.
I know someone who buys a shitter of a car giving false details. He drives uninsured and until recently he was driving whilst disqualified for several offences, including driving whilst disqualified. If he gets stopped he simply gives someone else's details (gleaned from 192.com) the car is normally confiscated and he goes on his merry way.
You can't be arrested for no insurance so there was no chance of him getting his fingerprints taken and the other offences discovered. The fact that he got away with it for the whole of a 3 year ban despite using about 8 different cars speaks volumes.
This was despite calls to the police who simply said that until they caught him there was nothing they could do!
There IS a need.
Thats funny over here in California you can go to jail for no insurance.
RE: There IS a need.
I would say that is not an example of need. Who cares if they can't curtail someone's freedoms successfully if they have to curtail everyone's freedom AND right to privacy in order to stop it?
@ There IS a need
You are a typical example of the `Don't want to get involved- the police should do something ´brigade. Being a member of society gives one a responsibility not only to one's anti-social friends but to the rest of society in general, it is after all YOUR society.
If your selfish aquaintance whilst driving on a ban should plough into a bus queue killing several people including children and old people unable to get out of the in time, then YOU carry part of that responsiblity, the victims aside from the physical injuries they may receive will have no recourse to an insurance claim only to sue this fuckwit. If you think there is a need to take this guy off the road then get yourself some balls and tell him if he continues to break the law you will inform the plod, think about it , it could be a friend of yours or a family member at that bus stop and their injuries or death would be partly your fault.
If we police ourselves then is no need for anyone else to police us.
"Appropriate legislation to protect the rights of the individual and the uses to which such a capability can be used by police are currently being considered as part of the review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.!
i.e. they think they might be on shaky ground with this so they need to change the law sharpish to allow it.
@AC: The fact that some people get away with crimes is not a good enough reason to turn the UK into a police state. It would be possible to eliminate a huge percentage of crime by placing everyone under house arrest with CCTV in every room of their house. But that would be going too far and so is this.
If this was used intelligently - then I can see the benefit. Unfortunately British cops have had their intelligence sacrificed on the great public alters of Political Correctness, League Tables and Performance Reports.
Before anyone shoots me down (I left my table leg and Oyster card at home) - there used to be a time where your average beat bobby knew exactly who the 8 or 10 little scumbags in his area were, and generally left everyone else alone unless they were doing something stupid. Even if you were caught for a High Crime, such as missing the bin with 1 errant chip, he'd probably just ask you to pick it up. No arrest, no DNA taken, no £100 fine and criminal record for attempting to defend yourself in court (e.g "the street lamp hasn't worked for 2 months - I didn't see I'd missed the bin").
Anyway - I'd be for these scanners if the cops *did* use such a device to take back control of the streets from "untouchable" little scumbags who know fine well it's too much effort for the cops to arrest them, take them down the nick etc to confirm their identity.
Alas - I suspect the "Papers, Citizen" poster has got the right end of the stick.
Which is why I'll say it again - every cop, plastic plod, for-profit "enforcement" muppet should have "always-on" copper-cams when they're on duty. End of every day - the whole lot is downloaded into a big database, and this DB is put under the custody of an independent civil liberties group. Citizen A (actually, it would be Subject A in the UK) complains about rozzer1 being a prick and tazing her for legitimately questioning why she was being detained/forced to give fingerprints unreasonably - then at least the conversations would be recorded, and be made available to SubjectA on a FoI request. Subject A could then sue Rozzer1 for harassment, unlawful detention, assault etc.
Of course, the bad cops out there would squeal like pigs (er...) about their "civil liberties" - but f*ck em. We are all monitored 24/7 now. Emails/Comms, ANPR, Oyster, CCTV,financial transactions blah blah. It's about re-balancing the equation.
I know it will never happen, but it's nice to dream :)
p.s - I'd also want the gits at British airport security on camera as well. Try being a lying obnoxious little Hitler if Customer A could complain and have the interaction reviewed independently when he comes back! Especially the cow who threatened to have me arrested "because she could".
Mine's the one with the serious chip on the shoulder ;)
No to NoID.
Everyone should be DNA mapped, fingerprinted, and biometric scanned at birth. The Biometrics should be updated at regular intervals as well.
To many people talk about civil rights etc but its the criminals who are being protected.
The comment above about the guy with no insurance and driving while banned is a case in point.
Yes, this is exactly the sort of reasoning which could be used. BUT... How will you feel when your fingerprints are taken by this device (which will by no means be the most accurate of machines), stored, and then found a pub toilet where a rape took place, you are prosecuted, not convicted, but you are placed on the sex offenders register and your DNA stored away, leading to more police harassment later on? (Someone told a story about a similar incident in comments on another story about the DNA database, so I am not just being paranoid) Meanwhile your mate simply 'accidentally' burns his finger tips to remove his prints, and continues as before?
Yes, the rights of the individual sometimes help criminals, but they are still necessary. Freedoms have to be protected. If they are removed, the law abiding majority suffer, and the criminals find ways around it. Simple as.
There IS NOT a need. That attitude is the one that leads to us sleep-walking out of our civil liberties.
RE: There IS a need
So to ensure that people like that are kept in line you're willing to give up your own freedoms?.. Maybe we should send a few cops around your home just to make sure you're not doing anything illegal, just in case, you know like you said - better safe than sorry...
If they are just checking your print against what might be in the DB then I don't see a real issue with it.
If they start capturing the data and then storing it against the name you gave, then it's a serious problem.
@There is a need AC
Surely just a right of the police to pull someone in for driving without insurance- which is both bloody antisocial, pig-headed and illegal- would suffice rather than a law introduced to combat this problem that can be greatly overused?
I have no problem with uninsured drivers being pulled in (quite the opposite, in fact), but would rather that the legislation allowing this didn't affect anyone who wasn't driving or was driving with insurance.
Let the muppets rule!
seems like a fair few people on here are of this opinion....sheesh what is it with the whole "well it'll get all the lawbreakers and wasters" people? They are criminals therefore they will do precisely what they are doing now; finding ways around the law and continuing to get away with it......it will be the sheep (read British public) who will suffer here and could be in potential danger should this data be stored and used for Jacqui Smith's lovely database......maybe many people on here are either too young to remember or never heard of the Serious Crimes Squad who fitted up a lot of people (the ones we know about) and would have gotten away with it too, only succeeding in depriving innocent men of a large proportion of their free lives....how long before this happens again? With DNA and fingerprint data on file...welllll
also it's a control, keep the sheep meek by doing scary things like checking finger prints etc...sheep don't question but do what they're told....increase the powers of police and increase the control/meekness
@ No to NoID
I can't actually tell if this person is serious. The first paragraph is one of those 'take-it-too-far to prove a point with sarcasm' type of arguments but then they follow up with stuff that sounds like they don't think it would be going too far.
I am terrified and disappointed in equal measures that people think we should be monitored to such an extent by a state that is meant to serve us. Congratulations: you have been terrorised and brainwashed by a propaganda machine into thinking that catching criminals is the single highest priority of a social system.
Freedom means nothing if it means only the freedom to live within a system of absolute control.
re: Just checking
And how do you know whether they are keeping the info?
So don't let them have it in the first place.
No, there isnt a need.
@Anonymous Moron #1 :
"You can't be arrested for no insurance."
<Road Traffic Act 1988 s143 (C2)>
It is an offence to use (or permit to be used) a motor vehicle on a road or public place when there is not in force a relation to the use of the vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the Road Traffic Act.
What do you think the ANPR cameras in traffic plod's cars are for, dimwit ?
And even if that weren't the case, that is simply an argument for a need for powers of arrest for uninsured drivers, not an argument for universal stop and fingerprint and all that goes with it.
@Anonymous Moron #2:
"To many people talk about civil rights etc but its the criminals who are being protected."
Which criminals are being protected, by whom, and against what, exactly ? Go ahead, convince me.
I see the "if you've nothing to hide..." brigade
are out in force on this one.
Do you *really* want to live in a 'society' where absolutely everything you do, say, read, write, watch and listen to (and most likely, think) are monitored, controlled and proscribed by the *Government*?
Because I'm fucked if I do.
Wake up to what's happening. It does NOT give anyone any more freedom or security, just FEAR.
In the meantime, I'll be damned if they're taking my fucking fingerprints.
Pass the Caustic Soda, will you.
What do you think the ANPR cameras in traffic plod's cars are for, dimwit ?
Tax. Insurance isn't connected to number plates. Dimwit.
> Insurance isn't connected to number plates
- Actually, it is.
When I got pulled over on the M1 a couple of years ago, the copper in the patrol car that stopped me was able to tell me via his motor's on-board computer that I was insured, so all I had to do was produce my license and MOT at the station within 7 days.
You can now renew your road tax both over the 'phone and on-line giving just your license plate number, so MOTs must be linked on the DVLA database too.
"if you've nothing to hide..."
I wonder if the MPs and other VIPs will have to go through the mm wave sensors that can see under your clothes.
Or maybe they have something to hide...
where have all the sheeple gone
Oh, never mind, they're all around us having their fingerprints taken by plod!
Checks map then history books. I thought Australia was the penal colony?
So as I walk down the street trying to mind my own business,
they will be marching towards me, their hands outstretched with this fingerprinting machine, and a camera on top of their head almost poking my eye out. What the hell is going on?
If the crime/suspicion is bad/strong enough they ought to be arrested at the time and taken to be locked up then and there. If the person looks like a suspect, finding out what his fingerprint looks like, that he was done for having 'extreme cartoon porn' 5 years ago and that his name is definitely Peter J Smith is not going to help you figure out if it's the person that just punched someone down the road and ran away.
AND, if there is no crime, there is no reason to fingerprint anyone. Unless of course they will randomly fingerprint 'suspicious' people.... So what exactly is the point of this? (probably fear)
I have a print I'd willingly give them but it comes off the bottom of my shoe at considerable force.
from how things current stand, it's not too great a leap...they'll soon be able to establish 'intent' as, obviously, a terrorist isn't going to monologue while laughing insanely when caught now are they?
This machine is not an evidential fingerprint taker. Think of it this way.
If you are driving and you do something stupid you will get stopped by the filth. If the relevant criteria are met you may be required to provide a breath test. Now this is purely a screening device which will tell the operator whether or not you are likely to be over the drink/drive limit or not. The evidential machine is back at the nick.
Now suppose you are the sort of person that tells lies. You have committed an offence for which you could receive a summons, caution etc. You decide that your name is Micky Mouse and so on just to be a twat. The police officer could now arrest you for the purposes of establishing who you are. This piece of legislation is used with foreign lorry drivers/itinerants and good old Travellers to name but a few.
If you have your fingerprints on police files then this little gizmo, of which you rant, will do a similar screening job to the breath test device from the earlier scenario.
It will say one of the following -
1. No trace so you still get nicked to establish who you are.
2. Your real name is Daffy Duck so that a summons can later be served or
3. It fails to read your print so you still end up at the nick.
Back at the nick you will be live scanned which will establish that you are Mr Duck and everyone goes away happy!
A mobile scanner is not Judge, jury and executioner and as with most of the shit the police are given it will be neither use nor ornament.
How Clean Is Your... uh, Fingerprint Scanner?
Kim and Aggie would have a field day with this little wonder... how the fsck do they clean it between "swipes"??