8 ms·

Is it weird that my first thought was about ransomware's ransom note and I wondered what kind of fingerprint was used (gpg key? ssh?). I had to open the article

Is it weird that my first thought was about ransomware's ransom note and I wondered what kind of fingerprint was used (gpg key? ssh?). I had to open the article to realise how wrong I was. >Police were able to identify him, as the print was on their database linked to a drink-driving incident from 1999. Ok, this is scary. So fingerprints collected 24 years ago for completely unrelated (and dubious - why collect fingerprints for drunk driving) reasons basically live forever in the gov databases. I'm not sure I welcome this brave new world.

darkerside 3y ago
Perhaps it's because I'm a parent, but I couldn't disagree more. Drunk driving is antisocial and dangerous behavior. In this case, the presumption that someone engaging in it is more likely to commit crime down the road has proven completely true. There are things that scare me about the future, but this is not one of them.
- NVHacker 3y ago
  For some reason, you seem to be assuming that the government only collects biometrics for "antisocial and dangerous behavior" and is only using them to protect others.
  - rangerelf 3y ago
    One as a citizen has visibility - or can have visibility- into the government's working, you DO vote, right? Private citizens and companies, not so much.
  - darkerside 3y ago
    No, I'm reacting to a complaint about a specific event. If there's a complaint to be raised about data collection for something innocuous, raise that instead. In this particular instance, I'm glad this horrible person was tagged like an animal and collected, saving a young girl's life.
ejb999 3y ago
A 9 year old girl was just rescued from possible death or horrible abuse - and you are not in favor of the technology that allowed that?
- cowsup 3y ago
  Yes, it is good that they found the child, by any mean’s necessary. Yes, it is concerning that, the moment you’re in police custody, for any reason, your biometrics are stored indefinitely. Both can be true. We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. There are happy mediums in between, and the above commenter thinks a decades-long storing of your fingerprint sounds concerning.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    IMO it seems reasonable that unless you’re convicted within, say, 1 year, your fingerprints are deleted. FWIW if you’re convicted of a DUI I have no problem with your prints being stored indefinitely. DUIs are treated as far, far more minor offenses than they really are.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      It seems totally pointless to keep them for a DUI. You have a criminal record if you have one. What do the prints help with?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        Identifying Bob when the name Charlie is given.
      - CBarkleyU 3y ago
        Just off the top of my head: The prints might help identify you in case you adbuct a little kid
        3y ago
thinkcontext 3y ago
I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing for. Do you not want fingerprints taken when people are arrested? Or maybe you don't think DUI should be an arrestable offense? Or you think maybe there should be a time limit on how long the government can retain bio info, perhaps by severity of offense?
- taway1237 3y ago
  The last one. But I think I overreacted a bit. Your thoughtful response made me realise that - thanks. It just surprised me how disconnected the crime 20 years ago was to the current situation. But maybe it really is the best solution.
karmakurtisaani 3y ago
I'd love to see you argue the theoretical perils of the government keeping fingerprint records in front of the family of the rescued 9 year old.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  This is why we don't restrict the pool of people who design justice systems to "those who've just had their 9-year-old taken".
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    Not sure why you'd bring up such a blatantly obvious point. All I'm saying it would be hilarious to see a terminally paranoid person argue why they don't want the government to keep fingerprint records of criminals in front of a family of people whose lives were just permanently altered for the better by the same records. I can't even think of very strong arguments against such records, which makes the above even more hilarious. But I get the opposition, it's scary when the government has permanent records of people.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Not sure why you'd bring up such a blatantly obvious point. Because it wasn't clear that it was obvious, from your previous comment.
woliveirajr 3y ago
In some countries, firgerprints are collect as soon as you get some governmental ID. And they live forever in databases. The actual go-to is to collect DNA samples from suspects (you don't need to be convicted).
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  That's kind of screwy, honestly. At least fingerprints can be worn off and erased.
  - extraduder_ire 3y ago
    They always come back the same as before though. Really only useful if you proactively remove them before committing a crime, and don't get printed before they return. Or just wear gloves.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      You could always burn them off.
      - extraduder_ire 3y ago
        Do you mean always as in it's always a possibility, or that they could be always (regularly) burned off? I think they still come back anyway, even if you have scars overlaid on parts of them.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Can they come back if they have just been burned? There would be scar tissue overlaying them surely?
chankstein38 3y ago
The fingerprint was collected and stored in 1999. I don't think this is "new"
throwbadubadu 3y ago
> Is it weird that my first thought was about ransomware's ransom note and I wondered what kind of fingerprint was used (gpg key? ssh?). If the headline wasn't changed here later I'd say so, pretty weird ;)
knocte 3y ago
Many countries read your fingerprints when you enter the border. I wouldn't be surprised if the likelihood of showing up in databases of foreign governments is even higher than your local one.
causi 3y ago
why collect fingerprints for drunk driving Being a piece of shit is habitual.
- mikecoles 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ricktdotorg 3y ago
    steady on -- DUI recidivism is likely higher than you/we think it is. US gov's NIH did a study in 2010[1] with an objective of: [determining] the statewide impact of having prior alcohol-impaired driving violations of any type on the rate of first occurrence or recidivism among drivers with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations in Maryland the study analyzed: more than 100 million driver records from 1973 to 2004 and classified all Maryland drivers into 4 groups: those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations. The violation rates for approximately 21 million drivers in these 4 groups were compared for the study period 1999 to 2004 and the study's summarized conclusions: The recidivism rate among first offenders more closely resembles that of second offenders than of nonoffenders. Men and women are at equal risk of recidivating once they have had a first violation documented. Any alcohol-impaired driving violation, not just convictions, is a marker for future recidivism. separately, here[2] is an NHTSA research note "looking back" at their study from 1995 that concluded that the recidivism rate was one third of all people charged with DUI. some states had rates of recidivism for those charged with DUI up to 41%, some as low as 11%. regarding those convicted of DUI, highest rate of recidivism was 69% (!!) and lowest was 11%. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853607/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853607/ [2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811991-dwi_recidivism_in_usa-tsf-rn.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811991-dwi_recid... (edited to clarify recidivism rate for convicted vs. charged)
lr4444lr 3y ago
It's not like his prints were found on the trail - they were on an actual ransom note.
- millzlane 3y ago
  Some of the newest neighbors to HN believe it's bad that this drunk drivers finger prints that were indefinitely stored, help find a little girl who was opportunistically kidnapped.
bell-cot 3y ago
> this brave new world. At-scale use of fingerprints by law enforcement is old - probably much older than the word "database": "The French scientist Paul-Jean Coulier developed a method to transfer latent fingerprints on surfaces to paper using iodine fuming. It allowed the London Scotland Yard to start fingerprinting individuals and identify criminals using fingerprints in 1901. Soon after, American police departments adopted the same method and fingerprint identification became a standard practice in the United States.[80] The Scheffer case of 1902 is the first case of the identification, arrest, and conviction of a murderer based upon fingerprint evidence..." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#20th_century
rangerelf 3y ago
Why "scary"? Why is this "unrelated" if it's a police work database? It's a known statistic that many are both repeat offenders and opportunistic, why should markers --like fingerprints-- be actively expunged? Why the scare mongering?
- taway1237 3y ago
  I'm not scaremongering (that assumes intent), just concerned. At this point why not just at least be upfront with it and collect everyone's fingerprint when they turn 18? It would make more sense IMO.
  - M95D 3y ago
    I live in EU. A state agency got my fingerprints when I applied for my passport. I expect that my fingerprints are now copied in various databases all over the world.
    - extraduder_ire 3y ago
      Spain? Have you ever done a freedom of information request or similar to find out where your data may have spread? (I'd certainly be interested, were it me.) The only biometric data attached to my passport is a black and white image of my face, which was taken on a mobile phone by a coworker.
      - M95D 3y ago
        No, it's not Spain. Freedom of information is a joke here. Ask what happens to fingerprints and the reply would be that the grass is green, 6 months later.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
You can wear them off if you really care. Use rock climbing as an excuse.
jjallen 3y ago
I welcome the world where evidence solves crimes and criminals are tracked so we can later catch them.
sushid 3y ago
Why is it dubious? The person committed a crime and was detained. It's a far cry from Brave New World.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  To some people, all things everywhere at all times are bad.

darkerside 3y ago

Perhaps it's because I'm a parent, but I couldn't disagree more. Drunk driving is antisocial and dangerous behavior. In this case, the presumption that someone engaging in it is more likely to commit crime down the road has proven completely true. There are things that scare me about the future, but this is not one of them.

NVHacker 3y ago
For some reason, you seem to be assuming that the government only collects biometrics for "antisocial and dangerous behavior" and is only using them to protect others.
- rangerelf 3y ago
  One as a citizen has visibility - or can have visibility- into the government's working, you DO vote, right? Private citizens and companies, not so much.
- darkerside 3y ago
  No, I'm reacting to a complaint about a specific event. If there's a complaint to be raised about data collection for something innocuous, raise that instead. In this particular instance, I'm glad this horrible person was tagged like an animal and collected, saving a young girl's life.

ejb999 3y ago

A 9 year old girl was just rescued from possible death or horrible abuse - and you are not in favor of the technology that allowed that?

cowsup 3y ago
Yes, it is good that they found the child, by any mean’s necessary. Yes, it is concerning that, the moment you’re in police custody, for any reason, your biometrics are stored indefinitely. Both can be true. We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. There are happy mediums in between, and the above commenter thinks a decades-long storing of your fingerprint sounds concerning.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  IMO it seems reasonable that unless you’re convicted within, say, 1 year, your fingerprints are deleted. FWIW if you’re convicted of a DUI I have no problem with your prints being stored indefinitely. DUIs are treated as far, far more minor offenses than they really are.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    It seems totally pointless to keep them for a DUI. You have a criminal record if you have one. What do the prints help with?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Identifying Bob when the name Charlie is given.
    - CBarkleyU 3y ago
      Just off the top of my head: The prints might help identify you in case you adbuct a little kid
      - 3y ago

thinkcontext 3y ago

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing for. Do you not want fingerprints taken when people are arrested? Or maybe you don't think DUI should be an arrestable offense? Or you think maybe there should be a time limit on how long the government can retain bio info, perhaps by severity of offense?

taway1237 3y ago
The last one. But I think I overreacted a bit. Your thoughtful response made me realise that - thanks. It just surprised me how disconnected the crime 20 years ago was to the current situation. But maybe it really is the best solution.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago

I'd love to see you argue the theoretical perils of the government keeping fingerprint records in front of the family of the rescued 9 year old.

robertlagrant 3y ago
This is why we don't restrict the pool of people who design justice systems to "those who've just had their 9-year-old taken".
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  Not sure why you'd bring up such a blatantly obvious point. All I'm saying it would be hilarious to see a terminally paranoid person argue why they don't want the government to keep fingerprint records of criminals in front of a family of people whose lives were just permanently altered for the better by the same records. I can't even think of very strong arguments against such records, which makes the above even more hilarious. But I get the opposition, it's scary when the government has permanent records of people.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Not sure why you'd bring up such a blatantly obvious point. Because it wasn't clear that it was obvious, from your previous comment.

woliveirajr 3y ago

In some countries, firgerprints are collect as soon as you get some governmental ID. And they live forever in databases. The actual go-to is to collect DNA samples from suspects (you don't need to be convicted).

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
That's kind of screwy, honestly. At least fingerprints can be worn off and erased.
- extraduder_ire 3y ago
  They always come back the same as before though. Really only useful if you proactively remove them before committing a crime, and don't get printed before they return. Or just wear gloves.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    You could always burn them off.
    - extraduder_ire 3y ago
      Do you mean always as in it's always a possibility, or that they could be always (regularly) burned off? I think they still come back anyway, even if you have scars overlaid on parts of them.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Can they come back if they have just been burned? There would be scar tissue overlaying them surely?

chankstein38 3y ago

The fingerprint was collected and stored in 1999. I don't think this is "new"

throwbadubadu 3y ago

> Is it weird that my first thought was about ransomware's ransom note and I wondered what kind of fingerprint was used (gpg key? ssh?). If the headline wasn't changed here later I'd say so, pretty weird ;)

knocte 3y ago

Many countries read your fingerprints when you enter the border. I wouldn't be surprised if the likelihood of showing up in databases of foreign governments is even higher than your local one.

causi 3y ago

why collect fingerprints for drunk driving Being a piece of shit is habitual.

mikecoles 3y ago
[flagged]
- ricktdotorg 3y ago
  steady on -- DUI recidivism is likely higher than you/we think it is. US gov's NIH did a study in 2010[1] with an objective of: [determining] the statewide impact of having prior alcohol-impaired driving violations of any type on the rate of first occurrence or recidivism among drivers with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations in Maryland the study analyzed: more than 100 million driver records from 1973 to 2004 and classified all Maryland drivers into 4 groups: those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations. The violation rates for approximately 21 million drivers in these 4 groups were compared for the study period 1999 to 2004 and the study's summarized conclusions: The recidivism rate among first offenders more closely resembles that of second offenders than of nonoffenders. Men and women are at equal risk of recidivating once they have had a first violation documented. Any alcohol-impaired driving violation, not just convictions, is a marker for future recidivism. separately, here[2] is an NHTSA research note "looking back" at their study from 1995 that concluded that the recidivism rate was one third of all people charged with DUI. some states had rates of recidivism for those charged with DUI up to 41%, some as low as 11%. regarding those convicted of DUI, highest rate of recidivism was 69% (!!) and lowest was 11%. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853607/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853607/ [2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811991-dwi_recidivism_in_usa-tsf-rn.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811991-dwi_recid... (edited to clarify recidivism rate for convicted vs. charged)

lr4444lr 3y ago

It's not like his prints were found on the trail - they were on an actual ransom note.

millzlane 3y ago
Some of the newest neighbors to HN believe it's bad that this drunk drivers finger prints that were indefinitely stored, help find a little girl who was opportunistically kidnapped.

bell-cot 3y ago

> this brave new world. At-scale use of fingerprints by law enforcement is old - probably much older than the word "database": "The French scientist Paul-Jean Coulier developed a method to transfer latent fingerprints on surfaces to paper using iodine fuming. It allowed the London Scotland Yard to start fingerprinting individuals and identify criminals using fingerprints in 1901. Soon after, American police departments adopted the same method and fingerprint identification became a standard practice in the United States.[80] The Scheffer case of 1902 is the first case of the identification, arrest, and conviction of a murderer based upon fingerprint evidence..." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#20th_century

rangerelf 3y ago

Why "scary"? Why is this "unrelated" if it's a police work database? It's a known statistic that many are both repeat offenders and opportunistic, why should markers --like fingerprints-- be actively expunged? Why the scare mongering?

taway1237 3y ago
I'm not scaremongering (that assumes intent), just concerned. At this point why not just at least be upfront with it and collect everyone's fingerprint when they turn 18? It would make more sense IMO.
- M95D 3y ago
  I live in EU. A state agency got my fingerprints when I applied for my passport. I expect that my fingerprints are now copied in various databases all over the world.
  - extraduder_ire 3y ago
    Spain? Have you ever done a freedom of information request or similar to find out where your data may have spread? (I'd certainly be interested, were it me.) The only biometric data attached to my passport is a black and white image of my face, which was taken on a mobile phone by a coworker.
    - M95D 3y ago
      No, it's not Spain. Freedom of information is a joke here. Ask what happens to fingerprints and the reply would be that the grass is green, 6 months later.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

You can wear them off if you really care. Use rock climbing as an excuse.

jjallen 3y ago

I welcome the world where evidence solves crimes and criminals are tracked so we can later catch them.

sushid 3y ago

Why is it dubious? The person committed a crime and was detained. It's a far cry from Brave New World.

snakeyjake 3y ago
To some people, all things everywhere at all times are bad.