RedM Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Roadside fingerprinting anyone? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6170070.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garetheves Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I have a couple of issues with this. First off it will only help "prove identity" like they say, if the person has a previous record because how doe sit help prove anything if your prints are on the system. Also i hope they dont start using the machine as a way of recording peoples prints onto the system as i didnt think they were allowed to do this randomly. Im not well up on the law though so am probably wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branners Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 did anybody see Mythbusters the other day when they spoofed their way past the fingerprint readers on a laptop and on a professional door lock? It was surprisingly easy. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 did anybody see Mythbusters the other day when they spoofed their way past the fingerprint readers on a laptop and on a professional door lock? It was surprisingly easy. JB Yes I had issues with this at GCHQ - Very easy which is my the level 5 areas were changed to retinal. Roadside would never work anyway because they couldn't index the pointers quickenough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 Yes I had issues with this at GCHQ - Very easy which is my the level 5 areas were changed to retinal. Are you sure you aren't James Bond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Are you sure you aren't James Bond? I was incharge of internal IT Security for 2 years there, and have signed the dreaded OSA, DV and SC cleared still valid - But I never Met "M" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 Red"M"? I'm the Russian equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 In which case What's todays mission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 First off it will only help "prove identity" like they say, if the person has a previous record because how doe sit help prove anything if your prints are on the system. Don't worry, your prints will match the second time round Also i hope they dont start using the machine as a way of recording peoples prints onto the system as i didnt think they were allowed to do this randomly. They *will* be keeping the prints for future use. Same as they are keeping the DNA samples from pseudo-arrests or people who are asked to voluntarily give a sample so they can rule themselves out of a local crime. (I can't believe people fall for this) How else do you think the DNA db has grown so quickly? By only keeping those who are convicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 The problem with 'roadside' identification is that if someone says they are Fred Bloggs, and there are no powers to detain them (i.e. they haven't there & then committed an arrestable offence) then there's nothing to stop them giving false details when they could be arrestable for a previous offence or circulated as wanted. The SOCA (Serious Organised Crime and Police) Act 2005 makes all offences arrestable subject to certain conditions, but exercising those powers can be problematic. The system has changed but not necessarily for the better! So Fred Bloggs is not identified as the correct person and there is no way to trace them if further enquiries are required. Currently I request an ink fingerpring on the back of the forms or tickets when dealing with people, if I suspect the person has given false details and arrest of the person is not practical or lawful. This is not much of a change from the ink fingerprint request at the scene, other than the electronic print identifying the person based on previous print records (which are held electronically since the introduction of the Livescan system) and of course the possible recording of prints that are not recognised, though this is unlikely. I expect a new law will have to be passed if the prints are to be stored of unidentified people (i.e. those that have never been arrested and whose prints do not match a speculative search of prints from crime scenes etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 How else do you think the DNA db has grown so quickly? By only keeping those who are convicted? All people arrested now have fingerprints, photograph and DNA recorded and they are kept permenantly. Much better than not doing it, or throwing records away after X years. Ian Huntley??? I can't comment about voluntary samples for mass elimination purposes, but when an aggrieved gives an elimination DNA sample (for example in an assault where there are two people's blood mixed on an article of clothing) their profile is not put on the same database as 'criminals' and is removed from any database after the court proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 The problem with 'roadside' identification is that if someone says they are Fred Bloggs, and there are no powers to detain them (i.e. they haven't there & then committed an arrestable offence) then there's nothing to stop them giving false details when they could be arrestable for a previous offence or circulated as wanted. The SOCA (Serious Organised Crime and Police) Act 2005 makes all offences arrestable subject to certain conditions, but exercising those powers can be problematic. The system has changed but not necessarily for the better! So Fred Bloggs is not identified as the correct person and there is no way to trace them if further enquiries are required. Currently I request an ink fingerpring on the back of the forms or tickets when dealing with people, if I suspect the person has given false details and arrest of the person is not practical or lawful. This is not much of a change from the ink fingerprint request at the scene, other than the electronic print identifying the person based on previous print records (which are held electronically since the introduction of the Livescan system) and of course the possible recording of prints that are not recognised, though this is unlikely. I expect a new law will have to be passed if the prints are to be stored of unidentified people (i.e. those that have never been arrested and whose prints do not match a speculative search of prints from crime scenes etc). Sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Sure? We'll see, but it doesn't worry me as I ain't got anything to hide.... My prints and DNA are already on the system, as are yours Martin In the long run it will make my job easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I dont think it will make much difference to the 'driving' public as we are all logged on the system anyway, treated in a criminal way because we drive... I guess it means everyone has a licence plate in the same way as a car, one day we'll have to have an MOT and Insurance if we step out of our front doors. We are already tagged by our movements on the Internet and our mobile phones. I also notice the Police are trying out 'Helmet Cams' providing them with video evidence in court. Dosn't really bother me especially if it is geared towards catching crooks rather than persecuting law abiding people... Sign of the times...one day we will all have chips implanted in us like dogs. New Zealand looks nice lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I also notice the Police are trying out 'Helmet Cams' providing them with video evidence in court. I don't see how it could be much evidential use........ How will it film throught the trousers??? Coat??? Mine's on the hanger by the door...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I don't see how it could be much evidential use........ How will it film throught the trousers??? Coat??? Mine's on the hanger by the door...... PMSL:d I thought the threads were sposed to die a death when i post a reply;) (you broken the rules Jake will be pissed off now lolololol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 In which case What's todays mission? Todays mission, Agent MKIV, is to cheer me up. A Mission Impossible if you will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now