60 per cent of drivers stopped do not give their true identity

[Azrael]

It's not a new and innovative way that's needed, it's a tried and tested way: destroying innocent people's samples. Not only that, some sign of sincere regret this travesty ever occured, and compensation offered to everyone who's had their privacy trampled on.

None of which is likely to happen any time soon.

But until this simple, essential measure occurs, a great many people just aren't going to trust measures like these. Fear of technology isn't the real issue: they could be using ink blocks and paper forms and I'd feel exactly the same.

 

[cybertect]

Just for the record, AFAIK, all serving Police officers now have to submit samples of their DNA to be kept on the database - so they can be easily 'eliminated' from investigation should their traces turn up at a crime scene.

Caused a bit of a stink amongst some sections of the constabulary when it was proposed in Scotland in 2003.

 

[Azrael]

To be fair to the Scots cops, they still have to destroy innocent people's DNA up there, so they've got better grounds to object than their English colleagues.

 

[TeeJay]

...Putting it another way, how likely is it that there's someone else whose face is sufficiently similar to yours that you could be mistaken for each other at a casual glance. Amongst a group of friends at a party, very small. Amongst the entire population of the UK, it starts to become significant...

So does this mean that photo-id such as passports are useless as well?

Surely the data sets for fingerprints will also contain other information as well such as name, address, date of birth and so forth, which can also be cross checked against the car registration or anything else someone can produce (eg a cash point card with their name on it etc)?

If the system throws up a "false positive" then a whole bunch of stuff will not match - it won't just be the fingerprints - and if the scan gives a "false negative" then the person being stopped will simply be allowed to walk away.

Since the police already have the power to take someone to a police stataion to establish their identity if in doubt I am more concerned about the grounds that will be necessary for the police to actually stop someone and ask for a fingerprint scan in the first place: Will they be required to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, or will they be allowed to stop people randomly and ask or a scan for no really good reason? This to me is the bigger issue - I don't really care that much about what technology they use for checking my identity, just about when and where they will be empowered to disrupt my life by stopping and holding me as I go about my lawful business.

 

[cybertect]

To be fair to the Scots cops, they still have to destroy innocent people's DNA up there, so they've got better grounds to object than their English colleagues.

Indeed. Earlier this year the Scottish Parliament rejected plans to put their NDNADB on the same footing as that in England and Wales. Scottish DNA samples are only retained for those not convicted for three years and only then in cases concerning violent or sexual offences.

A very interesting article in Nature magazine.

Story highlight: storing DNA profiles of unconvicted people makes no difference to detection rates, gathering DNA evidence at crime scenes does.

 

[cybertect]

So does this mean that photo-id such as passports are useless as well?

No (at least within the terms of this debate) as it's a different scenario and purpose.

Presenting a photo ID at a desk requires the person behind the desk to visually match the photo with your face, which you are presenting simultaneously. The purpose of a photo ID is to verify that you're the person entitled to hold that document.

To switch the analogy round, it's as if you were to present your photo ID at the same desk while wearing a mask and then ask the person to work out who you were from the photo. If they had enough details on file and enough time, they might eventually be able to find someone that looks like you, but it would not guarantee that you are the same individual. It would be daft to do this and that's not how a photo ID is used.

Surely the data sets for fingerprints will also contain other information as well such as name, address, date of birth and so forth, which can also be cross checked against the car registration or anything else someone can produce (eg a cash point card with their name on it etc)?

If the system throws up a "false positive" then a whole bunch of stuff will not match - it won't just be the fingerprints

That's exactly when their suspicions will be aroused, as the name and address you claim to be using won't match their identification of you from their fingerprint records. If you have any documents on you to support your claim of identity, they will be suspected as forgeries. The self-declared point of the system is to undermine false identities that may be used by habitual criminals.

Uninsured drivers are a soft target for the trial, as nobody likes them. They're one of the most commonly cited reasons for the widespread deployment of Automatic Number Plate Recognition Systems by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Less highlighted in the publicity is that pedestrians may be required, sorry requested, to provide their fingerprints too.

However, in the long run I doubt they'll really need evidence that a crime has been committed ('probable cause' in the US). It's easy enough to decide that you might be breaching the Prevention of Terrorism Act

[/cynical]

 

[Azrael]

Indeed. Earlier this year the Scottish Parliament rejected plans to put their NDNADB on the same footing as that in England and Wales. Scottish DNA samples are only retained for those not convicted for three years and only then in cases concerning violent or sexual offences.

A very interesting article in Nature magazine.

Story highlight: storing DNA profiles of unconvicted people makes no difference to detection rates, gathering DNA evidence at crime scenes does.

Bugger, seems the Scots are slipping a bit. Still, better than England.

Thanks for that extremely interesting article. The utilitarian case never had a chance of convincing me (I oppose the retention of innocent people's DNA on principle) but if it's hollow the government hasn't a leg to stand on.

Actually I've been wondering for a while if the clear-up case was as compelling as the Home Office claimed. They just go round boasting the number of hits innocent people's DNA has thrown up, with no information about whether they'd have been caught by other means.

Personally I'd like to see us follow the Canadian model (no DNA taken without a warrant, and no DNA entered on a national database until after a conviction for a serious crime) but the destruction of innocent people's DNA is the overwhelming priority.

Have serious doubts the Lib Dems will make proper use of it however. Their "campaign website" didn't even make the simple demand DNA be destroyed upon acquittal. If the law ever gets changed back I've the feeling we'll be relying on the Tories to do it; talk about desperate measures!

 

[detective-boy]

It's not a new and innovative way that's needed, it's a tried and tested way: destroying innocent people's samples. Not only that, some sign of sincere regret this travesty ever occured, and compensation offered to everyone who's had their privacy trampled on.

But deciding not to use this technology is not going to achieve this. The two things are not linked.

I agree that it is wrong that innocent peoples samples should be kept on the database - it's an entirely illogical way to run the system (as entry is effectively random) and it encourages malpractice - and in cases where there has been any actual disadvantage there should be compensation (perhaps a token level in other cases where no actual disadvantage is proven).

But this technology provides a means whereby future injustices can be avoided. There are people who regularly have their details given by others. There are offenders who regularly evade justice by lying about their identity. Those are equal injustices (and, arguably, lead to the further tightening of the system, and reduction in the exercise of discretion, which makes for even more injustice).

 

[detective-boy]

Just for the record, AFAIK, all serving Police officers now have to submit samples of their DNA to be kept on the database - so they can be easily 'eliminated' from investigation should their traces turn up at a crime scene.

Fingerprints have always been kept on file. Because they were relatively eeasy to leave behind in the days before good crime scene preservation understanding. Contamination by officers is now far, far less likely (due to good practice and wide availability of gloves, overshoes, etc.).

There was a DNA database elimination database created in the 90s and the vast majority of officers submitted samples. But it was not made compulsory and many officers refused on the same basis as they argue against the current situation for the main database retaining the samples of non-convicted persons.

The finding of officers fingerprints / DNA is much less of a problem than it once was and it can be dealt with on a case by case basis - if there is an unknown fingerprint or DNA profile found then elimination samples can be taken from the oficers involved in that specific incident just like anyone else. It is a moot point whether or not there would be sufficient cases to merit maintaining a database of all officers just in case - my experience is that over the last ten years of my service it was necessary on so few occasions as to mean it would be a waste of time and effort.

 

[detective-boy]

I am more concerned about the grounds that will be necessary for the police to actually stop someone and ask for a fingerprint scan in the first place: Will they be required to have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, or will they be allowed to stop people randomly and ask or a scan for no really good reason?

There is absolutely no suggestion that any powers to stop / search / question / report / arrest any person will be changed at all. The ONLY place where the technology will be used is where an ordinary identification check is now possible and is made.

(People will argue "But yes, that may be the case now, but soon there will be new powers allowing random checks" - that is a facile argument because there could just as easily be new powers introduced allowing random stops and searches or random arrests. The technology exists. It will not be uninvented. We cannot legislate against what any future government might use it for. It is foolish not to make use of it to gain the good things it can bring whilst putting in place appropriate safeguards against misuse.)

 

[detective-boy]

Actually I've been wondering for a while if the clear-up case was as compelling as the Home Office claimed. They just go round boasting the number of hits innocent people's DNA has thrown up, with no information about whether they'd have been caught by other means.

It is a fucking ridiculous argument to use in support of the current situation anyway. It would be logical to use it as an argument for a universal database of everyone's DNA profile but the current situation is still entirely random and illogical.

 

[cybertect]

We cannot legislate against what any future government might use it for.

It's perfectly possible if one has a properly framed constitution

 

[fela fan]

Mad.

You're driving along and you have to give your fingerprints.

FINGERPRINTS. What's going on in the country?

I recall driving in england when i was in my early 20s. I hated the fact that a copper might stop me. I might have been collared on car tax evasion, or i might have been stopped smoking a joint.

Hardly the stuff of criminal behaviour.

Stop the real criminals, the politicians.

 

[detective-boy]

Hardly the stuff of criminal behaviour.

er ... but it is ...

Name me a country in the world where there are no laws which may result in the police stopping you and dealing with breaches ...

 

[snorbury]

er ... but it is ...

Name me a country in the world where there are no laws which may result in the police stopping you and dealing with breaches ...

Sark??

 

[cybertect]

Hardly the stuff of criminal behaviour.

Er, although both actually are illegal.

edit: beaten to the punch by d-b

 

[cybertect]

Sark??

Try driving a car there and see what happens

 

[fela fan]

er ... but it is ...

Name me a country in the world where there are no laws which may result in the police stopping you and dealing with breaches ...

Thailand.

And in any case my point was that the laws are wrong. If i find a law that i don't like, and in breaking it i cause no problem to others, then i'm going to break it. Coz i don't like it.

And so if a copper stops me driving, and i'm doing no wrong, then i shall be named john smith.

Fuck them.

 

[detective-boy]

Thailand.

Thailand has no laws?

There are no reasons why the police may stop you in Thailand?

You can drive a motor vehicle with no documentation, wherever you like, however you like and the police will never stop you?

Are there no jails there? Are the stories we read of people being arrested there all imaginary?

 

[detective-boy]

And so if a copper stops me driving, and i'm doing no wrong, then i shall be named john smith.

Fine. But if you ARE breaking a law, or are alleged to be, and the officer wants to report you to the Courts who will decide the matter, then you will be volunteering to be arrested by doing so.

 

[fela fan]

Thailand has no laws?

There are no reasons why the police may stop you in Thailand?

You can drive a motor vehicle with no documentation, wherever you like, however you like and the police will never stop you?

Are there no jails there? Are the stories we read of people being arrested there all imaginary?

Just take a holiday here mate and you'll see!

As it happens i was driving home tonight, a few beers under the wear after watching two hours of the cricket (and, for british readers, not unable to drive), and there were a bunch of coppers doing a roadside 'collection of dosh' activity. One saw me without a seatbelt and tried to stop me, but i just drove on, with him running after me as i looked in the mirror. I was pretty pissed off that i'd put in over two hours of cricket watching time without a single wicket to cheer, so just had no stomach to stop.

Laws here are open to a different interpretation mate.

 

[fela fan]

Thailand has no laws?

There are no reasons why the police may stop you in Thailand?

You can drive a motor vehicle with no documentation, wherever you like, however you like and the police will never stop you?

Are there no jails there? Are the stories we read of people being arrested there all imaginary?

Hey, stop looking so disappointed mate. I was once accosted by an english copper on the islands over here (on holiday) who told me i should not be smoking a joint, and i told him to mind his own business. Blew the smoke right in his face i did.

Basically coppers here stop you for any rule they can and you pay them bung money. Either that or you tell them you''ll pay at the police station. But no-one does that coz they can't be bothererd, and in any case it's cheaper to pay them tea money on the spot.

Or you just drive right through them. I did that for the first time today, and i fucking enjoyed it!

Great profession it is mate!

 

[cybertect]

Basically coppers here stop you for any rule they can and you pay them bung money. Either that or you tell them you''ll pay at the police station. But no-one does that coz they can't be bothererd, and in any case it's cheaper to pay them tea money on the spot.

Can't say I'd be impressed if UK police operated in that manner.

 

[fela fan]

Can't say I'd be impressed if UK police operated in that manner.

I know what you mean, but it does have its advantages.

Even though they have guns you just ignore them. It's empowering mate.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Don't they shoot shoot drug dealers?

I heard you really didn't want to get on the wrong side of the police in Thailand these days.

 

[fela fan]

Don't they shoot shoot drug dealers?

I heard you really didn't want to get on the wrong side of the police in Thailand these days.

Yeah, well don't listen to that shit mate, i sailed passed them this afternoon.

As for the drug stuff, thaksin got deposed a few months ago.

Move over to the thread that deals with all thsi stuff.

It's easier to deal with the coppers here than in england. End of.

 

[Roadkill]

I don't particularly have a problem with this, so long as it's just a check against the existing database and the prints are not going to be retained. Since that seems to be what's planned I think it's fair enough.

I'm completely with Azrael on retention of DNA and fingerprint samples. IMO they should only be kept upon conviction, and all other samples should be destroyed forthwith.

 

[TAE]

There is absolutely no suggestion that any powers to stop / search / question / report / arrest any person will be changed at all. The ONLY place where the technology will be used is where an ordinary identification check is now possible and is made.

As I understand it, the police could arrest you and take you down to the police station. But that would be a huge hassle to them, and there is a certain safeguard in that. This fingerprinting business removes that defacto safeguard.

BTW - I would have no problem at all with Photo ID cards if there were not such an extensive database behind it.

 

[fela fan]

Fine. But if you ARE breaking a law, or are alleged to be, and the officer wants to report you to the Courts who will decide the matter, then you will be volunteering to be arrested by doing so.

DB, i can't help but say that this is one of the major reasons i don't live in my country any more. No way am i gonna be subject to such bullshit.

I recall on a visit back, way way out in the sticks, driving past a female copper at slow speed who told me through my open window to put my seatbelt on.

I just yelled out 'no'. Who the fuck is she to tell me what to do???

 

[detective-boy]

As I understand it, the police could arrest you and take you down to the police station. But that would be a huge hassle to them, and there is a certain safeguard in that. This fingerprinting business removes that defacto safeguard.

BTW - I would have no problem at all with Photo ID cards if there were not such an extensive database behind it.

There is no direct power of arrest associated with it so far as I understand. It is simply that if you refuse to have the fingerprint check done that may add to their suspicions that you have given false details and encourage them to use a pre-existing power of arrest they would otherwise use their discretion not to use. No additional powers, simply an impact on the discretion in using existing ones.

If the trial is successful I can see it being included in the general arrest powers somehow - a street check removing a discretionary power perhaps, or a refusal being one of the general grounds on which arrest could be made for another offence not for the refusal in itself.