Slashdot Mirror


UK Police Implement Roadside Fingerprinting Tools

mormop writes to tell us the BBC is reporting that police in the UK have implemented a pilot program that allows officers to fingerprint drivers using a small handheld scanner connected to a database of approximately 6.5 million prints. From the article: "Officers promise prints will not be kept on file but concerns have been raised about civil liberties. [...] It is primarily aimed at motorists because banned or uninsured drivers often give false names, although pedestrians could also be asked to give prints if they are suspected to have committed an offence."

9 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. What about a driver's license? by Josh+Lindenmuth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I missing something (which is possible, since there's no article to reference), or are they spending a ton of money to solve a problem with a simple solution?

    Their rational is that "it is primarily aimed at motorists because banned or uninsured drivers often give false names". Isn't this what a Driver's License is for? Or do British not have licenses (or not require that drivers carry licenses)?

    If someone doesn't have a license, or any other form of photo identification, they probably shouldn't be driving. It sounds like it would be far cheaper (and less of a privacy concern) to haul in anybody driving without a valid photo ID, since these people are more likely to be uninsured or banned.

    Or if the thought of hauling in folks without IDs is unappealing (since many people just forget to carry IDs), police could just ask the person a few key questions (such as name, address, city, maybe some type of social security #), which would be in the police database. Then this could be cross referenced against the auto registration. Seems easy to verify that the individual is telling the truth using existing data without resorting to finger prints.

    Of course, you could have someone who stole their neighbors car + memorized their name/address/social, but this type of person would have probably created a good fake ID as well ... meaning they wouldn't have been caught by the finger printing method either.

    --
    Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
    1. Re:What about a driver's license? by IIH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't this what a Driver's License is for? Or do British not have licenses (or not require that drivers carry licenses)?

      No, you aren't required to carry it with you, but are supposed to produce it on request within a certain number of days.

      However, it is clear to me that this is aimed at forcing the adoption of biometric ID cards (or more accurately the ID database behind it), just in smaller steps.

      1. First it will only be used for those without their licence on them. (for reasons given)
      2. Then it will be used to verify they are the person in the licence (pictures can be faked, gotta check your biometrics, sir).
      3. Then as a result of 1 and 2 above, they already have biometrics of most people on file, so the database is mostly complete.
      4. Biometric ID cards introduced (usual reasons given) - "not compulsary" you know)
      5. We have everyones's biometrics, so send them a card whether they requested it or not (we have the data, we're being nice and making it easy for them)
      6. Then, then most people have biometric id cards, make them a legal requirement (everyone has them, and it "stops crime/bad guys")
      7. Viola.

      In short this is step one of the "Barcode Britain" process.

      A parallel step is happening in 2008, where non-EU nationals in the UK will require an ID card to receive several services, but eu people won't, but the obvious question is how will someone prove they are an eu nationals? Result - forcing people to get an ID card in order so they don't need to show ID card. Only a government can think that twisted!

      --
      Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
  2. Call me old fashioned... by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 4, Informative
  3. So, lets review for a moment. by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In the UK they have or will have:
    • 360 helmet cams for police.
    • RFID tags in department stores
    • Video surveillance on most streets
    • "Smart" passports
    • and now this

    There also was that street fee thing, but I forget what that was all about. Sounds like the beginnings of a police state to me.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  4. Typical by Jaknet · · Score: 5, Informative

    I submitted this 6 hours before this one was sumbitted.... but because scuttlemonkey is a regular submitter mine gets binned and it included the link to the BBC story as well.

    Yes I know I'm going to get modded down.... but as it seems to be only the favourites here who are allowed to submit... sod it.

  5. Re:Probable cause by Who235 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, but don't worry.
    Officers promise prints will not be kept on file

    See? They promise not to abuse their power, so it's all okey-dokey. They won't put all your information in a huge database and track your every move until the day you lie deep in the cold, cold ground and are no longer a threat.
    In the US the police need "probable cause" but they usually just make that up if you object to a search or some other privacy infringing action.

    Probable cause? What a quaint, old-fashioned notion! Today, if you really piss them off, they can just call you an enemy combatant and disappear your ass to Gitmo. You can talk to your extreme renditioner "Mr Smith" about probable cause all day long while he's making you think you're going to drown and hooking your nuts up to a car battery. Don't fret, though. If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about. Just sit back, relax, and watch your rights sail out the window like everyone else's while we band together to bring those big bad terrorists, immigrants, uninsured motorists, pedophiles, deadbeat dads, and jaywalkers to justice.

    Jebus, people. This is really getting out of control.

  6. They will use this for any reason whatsoever by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They say " pedestrians could also be asked to give prints if they are suspected to have committed an offence".

    Considering that anyone can be suspected of anything, this opens the gates for totally random fingerprinting in the street. We already have random checks and detentions for the flimsiest of reasons. Consider the 34 year old woman labeled a terrorist for walking along a cycle path, the stopping and searching of an 11 year old girl near an RAF base, "the detention of a 21 year old student for taking pictures of the M3 motorway for a web-design company", the ejection of an 82 year old man at the 2005 Labour Party conference, and the detention of an 80-year-old man carrying an anti-Blair placard, for example. If you refuse, the precedents set by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Terrorism Act 2000, and Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 would ensure it unlikely you'd get off scott-free but instead become more of a suspect.

    Still, I'm not going to do anything about it other than complain about it online, as is my wont. In another 50 years when I'm eating my Soylent Green in my 29th-floor bugged apartment, I can pull out ruffled print-outs of Web pages like these, and think back to a time when at least my bowel movements weren't RFID tagged and scanned for prohibited substances.

    Basically, the British government is corrupt to the core and bordering on fascist. But.. what government isn't these days?

  7. They'll drag out "implied consent." by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll just invent some form of "implied consent" just like they do when you're driving a car.

    Eventually it's going to get to the point where just by walking out of your house in the morning, you're going to automatically "consent" to being fingerprinted, having your DNA sequenced, your retinas scanned, and your anus probed; and if you don't, they'll invent some sort of punishment for noncompliance. Or just Mace the hell out of you and do it anyway.

    Sure, they'll say, you don't have to consent -- you can just live inside your house 24/7. Just like, theoretically, you can walk everywhere instead of driving a car. By creating a totally impractical straw man, they allow you a "choice" to give up your rights, only without any other realistic option.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  8. Re:Probable cause by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of course that is what they said about DNA sampling in the UK. Then when they found out the police had been illegally storing a massive database, they just changed the law to make it legal. At that point with the obvious duplicity of the police I decided there and then I'd just refuse full stop to help them in any way. They will do the same with the fingerprint checker, I have no doubt of that.