> This reduces the possibility of false possibilities which carry a real chance of death if the police turn up to your house with guns. How unreliable are fing

> This reduces the possibility of false possibilities which carry a real chance of death if the police turn up to your house with guns. How unreliable are fingerprints? Statistics would be interesting. DNA is pretty damn accurate, as I understand it. Containing a higher proportion of criminials does not reduce the probability of a false positive. Merely having committed a crime in the past may mean you are more likely to commit a crime in the future, but it does not make it any more likely that you have committed any particular crime under investigation. This statement only seems to work if we are okay with sending any criminal to jail for any crime, rather than the specific crime that he/she actually committed. > Finally: a fingerprint is pretty much the definition of personal info That's a purely dogmatic argument. Why is the statement that "all personal information ought to also be considered private" justified?