It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ATS: Fingerprinting the masses

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:22 PM
Many is the time that government tries new ideas on small segments of the populace to gauge public reaction. Cameras at intersections, cameras on highways, GPS devices without court orders and other intrusions are tested and challenged. Upon passing the inevitable challenges, governments move further. One more 'notch' in the U.S. governments ever growing belt of tracking its citizens is being tried in Green Bay, Wisconsin - fingerprinting traffic and ordinance violators.
Duluth Tribune
GREEN BAY, Wis. - A new police policy to fingerprint traffic and ordinance violators is expected to prevent about a half-dozen people a year from being wrongly jailed, an official said Friday.
"There's an increasing use of people using false identification, fraudulent identification and stealing other people's identity and using it later on, and these people are becoming victims," said Capt. Greg Urban, public information officer for the Green Bay Police Department.
Green Bay officers are carrying portable ink pads to take one print from the index finger of those cited for traffic or ordinance violations and put the print on a copy of the ticket.
The new policy, which took effect Dec. 30, is described as voluntary.
The additional fingerprinting has been questioned by Christopher Ahmuty, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.
"It's unfortunate ID theft goes on, but if they stop thousands of people each year that are innocent except for tailgating or jaywalking, to treat them as if they are committing identity theft without any particularized suspicion, it doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of resources or fairness," he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Some may wonder if this is a real need or perhaps a trial balloon for a nationwide system. The potential public outcry caused by massive fingerprinting could be great. Is the “Big Brother” or merely public service? Only time will tell.

Related News Links:

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Banshee]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:12 PM
To prevent identity theft, my ass.

Just another reason for them to store your fingerprints.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by elderban]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:54 PM
there is another thread about the pole-leaz fingerprinting on traficc stops in TX. you know it is for your own saftey....YOU are under suspicion untill you can prove your innocense. why shouldn't law enforcement and the government have access to everthng about you whenever they deam it nessacary?? don't they have your best interests in mind? are they not just only looking out for your saftey? this info would never be used for anything else but your saftey, even from yourself. this info, of course , is totaly know, it's all just in the Name of Saftey...................

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:29 PM
the military has been collecting fingure prints for yeas "suposedly" safe in a seperate data base from the civil law enforement authorities for the purpose of identification should one become a casualty , THAT has long since gone the way of the Doo-doo. now it is common practice for civil authoriites to search the military data base as well even without a particular military suspect.

recently the military has been requiring DNA samples of all members- for the same purposes as the fingure prints of before. While the DNA samples are supposed to be secure- there have already been several attempt by civil authoritie to use them without a warrant. seems this is the next big invasion of our rights by "big brother"

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:09 AM
Humm....just one question.....did the meaning of the word VOLUNTARY change when i wasn't looking?.... do know, or should know, that states can have new policies or laws that have nothing to do with the federal government trying to enforce new policies....

If you do not like this policy and live in that area, get involved with the Neighborhood Crime Watch in your area, and tell your concerns. Normally chiefs of police go to these meetings once in a while, they are just like any other human being, you can talk to them. Get signatures from people in this area, and present this at the next Neighborhood Crime Watch meeting, make copies and send them to the Mayor also. There is a lot people can do, but most people are just too lazy....

One more thing, the title of this thread is misleading.... There is no fingerprinting of the masses going on.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:23 AM
I submitted this story on the 8th of January.
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops (from ATSNN)

Like I said in the other thread it's just another step to the NWO. Little by little they will take your freedoms away and put more restrictions on you. It may be just a fingerprint now and once they get a majority to comply with their laws, they will make it manditory. Like with the seatbelt law, at first they just said buckle up for your safety and now it's manditory or get a ticket.

When they start asking you for a fingerprint, refuse it. Lets slow down the soon to be manditory implanted chip ID

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link is not another step towards any NWO... Read the article again. First of all, it is voluntary. Second of all, states can have and pass new policies which have nothing to do with the Federal government trying to force the NWO on you.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:29 AM
Ycon, searched and didn't see your thread- same stuff

Well, I thought this is a 'ball-breaker.' Very newsworthy in many places.

Sure it is voluntary now, but after the trial balloons go up and government sees where the heat is this will become mandatory.

DNA is next. Some time soon everyone trying to get on an airplane will be providing hair (or something) for a ticket-gate check of some database.

Chips aren't too far off. They just aren't 'ready for prime time' politically yet.


posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:33 AM
My fingerprints have been on file with the FBI since I was seventeen with no problems whatsoever. I have been fingerprinted for employment purposes at least twice in the intervening years without a single problem.

[edit on 05/1/15 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Ycon
Like with the seatbelt law, at first they just said buckle up for your safety and now it's manditory or get a ticket.

As Muaddib stated, many of these laws are on a state by state basis. For example, the state that I live in has no mandatory seatbelt law for those over age 18. It also has no motorcycle helmet law.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:40 AM
Well, you know what would really be interesting? Do a research to find out who thought about this policy and what politicians sponsored it. When you find this info then we can find out who is behind this. This is not a federal policy, it is a state could very well have been thought out by democrats, or democrat/liberals, just like other bills have been erroneously stated in the past by some members to have been sponsored by Republicans.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:52 AM
Muaddib, For example, the seatbelt law was voluntary at first and became manditory. So will be the fingerprinting, it will eventually be manditory to be fingerprinted when you apply for your driver license and then manditory when stopped for a traffic violation it will need to match.

Do you think states are making the seatbelt law manditory by choice? You could say yes, but the government is taking away state benefits unless they make it manditory 10's of thousands of dollars. So it is forced in a way. The NWO is coming and you will see more and more of this type of thing as we get closer, wait until the next terrorist attack and/or martial law happens.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Ycon]

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Ycon, searched and didn't see your thread- same stuff

I submitted it to ATSNN but it was sent to current events instead

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
My fingerprints have been on file with the FBI since I was seventeen with no problems whatsoever. I have been fingerprinted for employment purposes at least twice in the intervening years without a single problem.

[edit on 05/1/15 by GradyPhilpott]

Thats because you volunteered them to be taken when you enlisted.

This however is a clear invasion of peoples privacy. People who are not criminals should not be treated as such. Taking fingerprints for drivers liscences, or small, minor infractions or violations is a violation of our constitutional rights against unecessary search and seizure. Since your body is part of your property and personal effects, taking of fingerprints is a violation of this, unless you are guilty of a misdemeanor or felony.

You may not consider it a problem, but thats because you offered your fingerprints. Not everyone wants to give the govornment thier personal data like fingerprinting and such. It really is a violation of our rights and should be stopped!

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:55 AM
Skady do read this part.

The new policy, which took effect Dec. 30, is described as voluntary.

Urban said the department was already bringing in people for fingerprinting if they couldn't show valid photo identification or driver's licenses or if officers had reason to doubt their identity.

Excerpted from link provided in original post.

If you present a valid driver's license the officers will not doubt your identity, still you can say no when they offer to take your fingerprints.

This is a policy by one state, it is not the federal government trying to impose anything on these people.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Thats because you volunteered them to be taken when you enlisted.


You may not consider it a problem, but thats because you offered your fingerprints. Not everyone wants to give the govornment thier personal data like fingerprinting and such. It really is a violation of our rights and should be stopped!

How my fingerprints came to be a matter of record is really immaterial. What is material is that having my fingerprints on file has caused me no problems. In fact, having them on file is a kind of reassurance that in the case of becoming a suspect in a crime, you can easily and quickly be exonerated.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 05:21 AM
I still do not understand why people starting yelling NWO or Invasion of Privacy, when they may or not be required to submit their fingerprints. Are you planning/in the process of/or have done something illegal? If you have then I can see why a person might be worried...if not, then why worry about it? Do you think there is some guy that is going to be sitting down, looking at fingerprint swirls, saying "this one is bad" "this one is good"?Explain to me how they are invading your privacy, by having your fingerprints?
As stated in the other thread,'
it is voluntary, and even if made mandatory, I refer back to the same question. Have you done something illegal.
You freely give out your SS number when applying for a job, or for credit. When cashing a check at a bank, a lot of them require your thumbprint if you do not have an account and a lot of banks snap your pic at the same that OK?
Are you worried that at some point in time they are going to establish "fingerprint roadblocks"--once again, have you done something wrong?

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:52 AM
I believe that for about fifteen to twenty years now, banks have been requiring a fingerprint to be placed on certain checks before being cashed. The next time you're in a bank, notice that there is a special inkpad on the counter for this purpose.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:09 PM
Is the person detained for a traffic violation informed that the Fingerprinting is not mandatory?

If so, then the citizen is making a choice.
If not, then the citizen is being misled.

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:39 PM

crime and clues
Fingerprints are one of the best forms of physical evidence. A fingerprint can conclusively identify both offenders and victims. State wide, and soon, nation wide databases are available for rapid computerized searching. There are a number of methods of processing for fingerprints, some of best can be found below.

Findlaw editorial
At the same time, however, the underlying issue exposes a well-kept secret of our legal system: It is pervaded by unjustified assumptions. It turns out that reliance on fingerprint evidence is justified. However, as a few other examples will illustrate, much of the law is based on nothing more than guesswork.

See the Link, editorial on the same Federal Judge ruling fingerprints are not enough, then in a follow on case changing his own mind that they are.

the government asked Judge Pollak to reconsider his ruling. Plaza I had been decided based upon the transcript of a similar motion in a different case. For Plaza II, however, Judge Pollak listened to the live testimony of some of the world's leading fingerprint experts in order to resolve the government's motion for reconsideration.

In the end, Judge Pollak changed his mind because the live testimony revealed that the FBI had in fact conducted a considerable number of tests to determine the reliability of fingerprint evidence. Evidence of the results of these tests allowed Judge Pollak to answer two of the basic Daubert questions in the affirmative: The method had indeed been tested, and its error rate was indeed low.

US v. Plaza, Acosta, and Rodriguez, Cr. No. 98-362-10, 11, 12
by tradition, latent print examiners in the United States have required a match of at least six to eight characteristics to show identity, but most experts prefer at least ten to twelve; in English courts 14 to 16 matches are required for

It (method for determination of identity by using fingerprints) is based on algorithms- (mathematical guesswork?*). Also notice 'tradition.'
So, traditionally one could be incarcerated by mathematical guesswork based on rules. Mathematical rules are NOT always certainties: ie. the 'rounding rule(s)'.

this court accepts, arguendo, Mr. Meagher’s response to the question whether “you have an opinion as to what the error rate is for the work that you do, latent print examinations”: “As applied to the scientific methodology, it’s zero.” Test. Meagher, Tr. July 8, 1999, at 156.
It is the practitioner error rate that affects, for better or worse, the reliability of the fingerprint identification testimony on which the government seeks to have the jury base some aspects of its verdicts.

This just doesn't reassure me.

As previously noted supra, Part I.B, Mr. Meagher had conducted a survey in which he sent Byron Mitchell’s ten-print card and alleged latent fingerprints to state agencies. The ten-print card was to be compared with the state fingerprint records: the result—that only Pennsylvania, the state in which Mitchell had been incarcerated, reported a “hit”—was significant confirmation of the uniqueness of fingerprints. The other aspect of the Meagher survey—arequest that state agencies determine whether the latent printsmatched the known Mitchell prints—offered scant support for the accuracy of fingerprint identification. Nine of the thirty-four responding agencies did not make an identification in the first instance.
    23 Mr. Meagher followed up by sending photographic enlargements of the prints in a plastic sleeve, on which the level two Galton detail information was marked. Mr. Meagher asked the nine agencies to reconsider their initial responses, emphasizing that the survey was being prepared for a Daubert hearing. All nine agencies changed their responses and made a positive identification. Test. Meagher, Tr. July 8, 1999, at 119–21. Mr. Meagher explained his resubmission of the fingerprints to the nine agencies:

Maybe I read this wrong, it seems to me that any validity just went down the drain. When shown what to look for supposed experts change their mind!

The defendants also point out that in proficiency examinations that were given to fingerprint examiners beginning in 1995, the error rates have been alarmingly high. In 1995, fewer than half of the 156 participating examiners—44%—correctly identified all five latent prints that were being tested, while 31% of the examiners made erroneous identifications. Possession of Truth, 46 J. Forensic Identification 521, 524 (1996) (Def. Ex. 2).While the results had improved somewhat by 1998, only 58% of the examiners correctly identified all the matching prints and did not make incorrect identifications. Latent Prints Examination Report No. 9808, Forensic Testing Program 2 (Def. Ex. 3). As with the Mitchell survey, these proficiency examination results may be taken as somewhat suggestive of practitioner error. However, it should be stressed that these results, standing alone, can hardly be regarded as significant evidence of what the “rate of error,” in the Daubert sense, may be. 509 U.S. at 594.

(emphasis added)
Below is another point of concern:

a. Galton Point Minima
Various witnesses at the Mitchell hearing testified that the ACE-V process is the
method in general use among fingerprint examiners in the United States. However, the application of this method, in particular whether a minimum number of Galton points must be identified before a match can be declared, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sergeant Ashbaugh testified that the United Kingdom employs a sixteen-point minimum, Australia mandates that twelve points be found in common, and Canada uses no minimum point standard. Test. Ashbaugh, Tr. July 7, 1999, at 144–45. In the United States, state jurisdictions set their own minimum point standards, while the FBI has no minimum number that must be identified to declare an “absolutely him” match, Test. Meagher, Tr. July 8, 1999, at 105, but does rely on a twelve-point “quality assurance” standard

There are no mandatory qualification standards for individuals to become fingerprint examiners,26 nor is there a uniform certification process. Mr. Meagher, for example, testified that while some FBI fingerprint examiners are certified by the International Association for Identification (IAI),27 he is not certified by the IAI, but by the FBI. Test.
    26 According to one critic:
    Traditionally, fingerprint training has centered around a type of apprenticeship, tutelage, or on-the-job training, in its best form, and essentially a type of self study, in its worst. Many training programs are the “look and learn” variety, and aside from some basic classroom instruction in pattern interpretation and classification methods, are often impromptu sessions dictated more by the schedule and duties of the trainer than the needs of the student. Such apprenticeship is most often expressed in terms of duration, not in specific goals and objectives, and often end with a subjective assessment that the trainer is ready.

This is not reassuring.

Since the court finds that ACE-V does not meet Daubert’s testing, peer review, and standards criteria, and that information as to ACE-V’s rate of error is in limbo, the expected conclusion would be that the government should be precluded from presenting any fingerprint testimony. But that conclusion—apparently putting at naught a century of judicial acquiescence in fingerprint identification processes—would be unwarrantably heavy-handed.

So, in the end the Court decided to accept a methodology and therefore the evidence from its use but not conclusive statements:

But no expert witness for any party will be permitted to testify that, in the opinion of the witness, a particular latent print is—or is not—the print of a particular person.

This is interesting, left to the jury to decide!

*a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem

new topics

top topics


log in