posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:32 PM
The article suggest using remote fingerprinting instead of a time-card puncher at places of employment. That's Orwellian, and it should be illegal.
If 99% of employees voluntarily submit to remote fingerprinting, it forces the other 1% to wear gloves when they punch in and out the old fashioned
way and it makes them suspects.
Under existing case law, police need a warrant or consent to fingerprint a suspect. If you leave your fingerprints on a glass in the presence of
police, that constitutes consent. I would like to see that law strengthened with legislation, making it illegal to use surreptitiously obtained
fingerprints in evidence against a defendant.
Better yet, it should be illegal for law enforcement agencies to even possess a device which can obtain fingerprints without consent. An
exception might be made for detecting terrorist suspects at ports of entry to the country. If a fingerprint so obtained isn't already in the
terrorist database, it should be illegal to record it. However, I doubt if that many terrorists have their fingerprints on record, so that would have
Then there's the matter of "fruit of the poisoned tree". If a suspect is first identified by surreptitiosly obtained fingerprints, evidence
subsequently developed because of that illegal search (of fingerprints) should also be excluded.
Until the law catches up, I guess it would be a good idea to buy stock in glove manufacturing companies.