Re: Too one-sided
Best thing to do is refuse to submit to having your prints taken on the street.
No it isn't.
If the police officer has sufficient grounds to believe that you have committed a crime, they should arrest you so that you get a free lawyer and start the clock ticking.
Unfortunately being arrested, whether or not you are subsequently charged, has real life consequences. One of which is inelligibility for omse possibly important visa waiver schemes, such as the one for the USA.
I have to travel there for work periodically, and have had to do so for numerous prior employers, so need the waiver scheme for my work. Lots of places presume you haven't committed genocide, and there's so few people with HIV/AIDS and so many people with a criminal record, that elligibility for the scheme (which employers are entitled to enquire about) is used as a proxy for "Do you have a criminal conviction that is timed out under ROA?".
Don't shoot the messenger over this please, but what is, is. It's not my idea and its not something I influence.
If they don't have sufficient grounds to believe that you have committed a crime they should be leaving you alone rather than carrying out speculative identity checks on people who happen to be in a particular area on the grounds that there are bound to be one or two illegals amongst the hundreds checked.
This will probably mostly be used to verify that drivers stopped while commiting offences are who they say they are, and not the person insured on the car. No verifiable ID, then please put a hand on this device Sir.
I would expect there to be fewer applications of the tech for all other use cases, once it goes live.
Or maybe wet your finger with a plastic solvent before pressing it against the officer's scanner.
And risk going from being an innocent suspect who could have cleared themselves effortlessly in a second, to someone possibly guilty of criminal damage? Sorry, but I'm not sure you've thought this through.