Safe Speed Forums

large link

Speeding: Now you will be finger printed
by STEVE DOUGHTY

Motorists pulled over by police face the threat of being fingerprinted from today - further inflaming fears over the growth of the Big Brother culture.

They will be asked to use a hand-held fingerprint reader which will check their identity against the 6.5million recorded prints of crime suspects.

Although the scheme, to be tried out by ten police forces, will be voluntary at first, the Government has admitted it is considering making it compulsory.

It would work in the same way as motorists having to take a breath test to show whether they have been drinking.

Laws would be brought in which would mean criminal penalties for drivers who are stopped.

Although the scheme, to be tried out by ten and who fail to let their fingerprints be checked. The extension of fingerprinting to the roadside - at present such checks are made only on criminal suspects in police stations - comes amid growing concern at the spread of public surveillance.

Among controversial developments are the unchecked growth of a police DNA database and the Government's plans for an all-embracing identity card system which would record personal data on everyone in the country.

The growing network of information systems based on credit and store cards and the presence everywhere of CCTV cameras have also added to the general unease.

One watchdog group has already recorded Britain as the most spied-on nation in Europe. Tories warned that roadside tests must not become a means to bring the records of millions who have committed no crime on to the police National Automated Fingerprint System.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "While we have no problem with people voluntarily giving their fingerprints, this must not become a stealth gateway to storing the fingerprints of innocent people on some Government database."

Giving fingerprints at the roadside will be voluntary for motorists for now. But the safeguards provided by the Home Office will be slender.

The only guarantee that drivers are not browbeaten by officers into allowing their prints to be checked will be the police stop-and-search form, which must be completed by officers.

This includes a box in which officers record that procedures were carried out with the consent of the individual stopped.

Home Office officials said yesterday that fingerprints taken from drivers would not be recorded and would only be checked against those of criminals and suspects which are already stored on the national computer.

The Home Office's Police Information Technology Organisation said the new Project Lantern system could save more than £2.2 million a year.

If trials are successful the Government will prepare laws to make it compulsory for motorists to accept fingerprint testing. Police Minister Tony McNulty said: "This trial represents an important step forward in our commitment to ensuring we have an effective and efficient police service fully equipped for the challenges of modern policing.

"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 front line and reducing any inconvenience for innocent members of the public."

The Lantern device electronically scans the index fingers and sends an encrypted wireless transmission to the central fingerprint database.

It scans the database and identifies possible matches. PITO's head of fingerprint identification, Chris Wheeler, said: "This pilot will help us explore the accuracy and capacity issues around the device."

The first trials will begin today in Luton and will involve those suspected of motoring offences.

Other forces who will begin using the system over the next two months are British Transport Police, Essex, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, the Metropolitan Police, North Wales, Northamptonshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.

***

The 'speeding' link seems fairly spurious. This is really a 'civil liberties' issue.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

So it’s ordinary people who will suffer because the government and the police want to collect a fingerprint database in the hope of putting an end to unsolved crimes.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

When are they allowed to take your finger print.
anytime?
after any alleged offence?
after an alleged arrestable offence ?


how long can they retain your finger print
just for the check?
for reasonable time?
for ever?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

It’s a stroke of genius!

They can’t get away with just forcing a mandatory fingerprinting process on everyone, so they instead only fingerprint ‘suspects/criminals’ – then make the rules so unfair that everyone eventually becomes one!

I saw this on the BBC this morning.

The woman said you do not have to give your finger prints, but you could get arrested and forced to give your finger prints.

So you have to give your finger prints.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

The "firefighting" spokesperson trying to stem the blaze of anger rushed onto radio this morning said only those suspected of not giving correct ID/address details would be targeted, and that the idea was to find out at the road side instead of arresting them and taking them back to the station for the same process.

He also said that banned and non licensed drivers were the chief suspects who refuse to give correct details.

I can see how not knowing if you are who you say you are at the roadside could be a problem - and if I was going to be arrested and dragged of to the station to confirm, I would not be too happy.
I also would have no objection to them holding my fingerprints, since they could not achieve anything with them - but the thought that all my data could be left on some government laptop or PC, only to be stolen as happens with monotonous regularity these days, fills me with horror!
It would be like putting all you private data on a Bank's computer, and having them leave it out with the trash - as has happened recently!
See BBC's WATCHDOG program for details!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

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

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

... and passengers?

Do you really believe that 60% of people stopped by the police give false details. This is incredible department of guesswork stuff.

In any event, I thought that fingerprint matching was quite an inexact science with quite a margin of error.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Like much "Forensic" evidence. Fingerprints are only really usefull for exclusion purposes (IE showing who wasnt at the scene)

As I have said before. For me, as a Juror, No MMO (Means, Motive, Oppertunity) No conviction!

Im not even sure I would accept a confession unless it was corroberated by a convincing MMO! It would be far too easy (Is far too easy) for a police investigator to bully a dodgy confession out of somebody using the argument that a dna test is infallable!

(I cannot remember the details but there are cases where DNA evidence has been shown to be incorrect but because of the alledged infallability it must be almost impossible to prove ones innocence. I do recall one case where somebody was able to show that they coulndnt have committed the crime because they were in hospital at the time. Unfortunatly Most of us dont have the benefit of such rock solid alibies! )

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

The fingerprint data is transmitted over the gsm network so just take a portable mobile blocker with you and bingo, you can't be checked! http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm only £139 quid to give you immunity! Unless they are going to make sure suspects & their friends are always at least 30 feet away from the device when it is checking then this attack would work. Police would need jammer detection, then jammers would probably incorporate anti jammer detection methods so they still wouldn't know....

The data is encrypted but they don't say by what method - a lot are insecure and crackable so people could hang around where the police are doing checks and intercept the data as it floats around the ether. Once cracked you could then make sure all your friends come back clear regardless using the classic man in the middle attack.

Allegedly in the trial you can insist on your fingerprints being deleted but I bet the law will be changed quietly in the future to have all prints retained. I am sure false fingerprints will soon be coming onto the market for the more upmarket criminal! Have they considered the increased number of drive offs that will occure? No sensible criminal is going to let themself be checked if they know it will lead to their arrest so they won't stop. The 95% accuracy figure would mean 5 checks in every 100 will be wrong so you will have people falsely accused and others let off.

As usual we are all becoming suspects rather than free citizens.

I've just seen this demonstrated on Sky TV news. But the print was deleted from the hand held device after trasnmission.

What's the good of that?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Teabelly, you missed the small print:- 'Sorry-not for sale to EU customers.'!

IT'S SOD'S LAW ISN'T IT? Hang on, you missed the best bit. "Pedestrians can also be asked to give prints if they are suspected to have committed a crime.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

It’s not beyond the wit of man to create fingerprint casts from photos, so publish high resolution scans of your fingers on the web – plausible deniability!
……until publishing information about yourself becomes an offence


As for the real criminals – when on a spree, just wear gloves!



If anyone stops me in the street demanding to scan my digits, this is all they'll get:

They can have my fingerprints when they can separate them from my cold, dead hands

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

So how long before they start implanting microchips at birth?!

All of this crap is being foced on us because the people in charge of the system can't do their bloody job properly!

Besides. In order to fingerprint people at the roadside there would need to be police on the roads with a good reason to stop you in the first place....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I don't believe that for a moment. What this might relate to is that percentage of those whose identity was doubted by the officer and who were brought in for further checking. Perhaps 60% of them had given false details.



It can be imprecise when comparing smudged prints from a crime scene against previously taken prints. AFAIK they are pretty accurate when comparing two sets of clean prints.


I would say that for offences like due care, dangerous parts, defective tyres, contravention of traffic signs, excess speed etc, 95 to 99% give correct details without question. It's not difficult to assess who is not giving correct details. In such cases it may be that a quick fingerprint check will reveal that they are who they say they are, therefore saving us and them time wasted at the station.

We all have different faith and trust in the promises made that prints would not be retained. I'm sure if we say they won't be retained, they won't. Whether the power to retain these prints is the next step a few years down the line I know not. That would concern me somewhat. I do not like the idea of ad hoc collection of this kind of data. We have to collectively agree or collectively disagree that dna/prints etc should be universally held, and work on that basis.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

By the looks of it they wouldn't need much of an excuss. I'd say they just want to be able to pull anyone over at an time they feel fit.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

[quote="Sixy_the_red"]
All of this crap is being foced on us because the people in charge of the system can't do their bloody job properly!

quote]


Or those in charge ain't got a clue about getting the right kit to do the job.
As said before -like the story of the swing - kid wanted stick on rope - ended up with stainless steel frame, armchair as seat and hawsers as ropes - and it didn't move.

There is a whole section on this kind of misleading claim in John Allen Paulos's book Innumeracy.

He puts it in the context of tests for cancer which have an accuracy of 98%. In his example, he assumes the rate of cancer to be about 0.5%. Which means that the test generates 3 false positives for every 1 correct diagnosis.

Any test like this is useless unless the accuracy is much higher than the incidence of the feature you are looking for.