Fingerprinting people entering and leaving the country?

Neewbie_noob

As the thread title says, should people be fingerprinted upon entering and leaving the country, regardless of citizenship?

Here are my reasons.

Criminals who (are presumably fingerprinted by police by electronic means) will be seen leaving the country if they are remanded on bail, although their passport is often seized during this, they could easily flee to the UK with a driving license, other ID, or if they are citizens of other countries, they can use another passport.

If a person is wanted in Ireland (for, just say, child maintenance reasons), when they re-enter Ireland they will be apprehended when their fingerprints "set off alarm bells".

If someone is suspicially entering and leaving the country they can easily be tracked.

This can also be used to prevent identity theft, illegal immigration and welfare fraud (say, people wh might be claiming welfare in Timbuktu and back in Ireland).

In case someone loses or "loses" their passport or ID in transit, they can merely scan their fingerprint and their photo will come up on screen.

If a dossier is kept of every Irish citzen's fingerprints of foreigners' fingerprints (inlcuding British) in Ireland, if a crime is commited, then the perpetrator can quickly, efficiently and easily be tracked.

I am aware that the open border with NI will pose a problem, if the UK don't impose such border restrictions on people then they can easily fly to Belfast and then get the train / bus / car to the Republic, unless we keep a dossier with the UK.

So what do y'all think.

An in before someone just responds with "NO" or the PC brigade and Liberals responding with "it's an invasion of our privacy".

So, Discuss.

coonecb1

No

Yes - we should keep proper records of who enters the country.

Run_to_da_hills

It will only be a matter of time whether you like it or not.

Hande hoche!

Wouldn't be in favour of it. I already feel like I have four pounds of Semtex on me merely going through metal detectors at airports.

squod

Fingerprints? This is 2012 not 1912.

Use the same method marketing companies and the CIA use. Track them through the apps and games on their mobiles.

bbam

No

Definitely..
Fingerprints and DNA samples.
As should every citizen in the state be compelled to supply the same. I also feel that ID cards should be compulsory to carry at all times.

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem...

I know people will argue invasion of privacy and civil liberties, but that argument doesn't make sense, its not like the DNA sample or finger prints are taken in public with an anal probe !!

Everyone should be given 2 years to comply or face fines.

NegativeCreep

Ah now. Something about this idea doesn't sit right with me. Being made feel like a criminal before you do anything.

Amirani

bbam wrote: »

Definitely..
Fingerprints and DNA samples.
As should every citizen in the state be compelled to supply the same. I also feel that ID cards should be compulsory to carry at all times.

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem...

I know people will argue invasion of privacy and civil liberties, but that argument doesn't make sense, its not like the DNA sample or finger prints are taken in public with an anal probe !!

Everyone should be given 2 years to comply or face fines.

It's like this in the Netherlands and it's awful. If you want to walk your dog or go for a run you need to carry an ID card? **** that.

hardCopy

No

Why the hell not?

Firefox11

Do our current passports already not contain biometric data?? I thought they did??

squod

bbam wrote: »

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem...

The implication is that you trust the thieving shysters who run the country & the ''judiciary'', which is just and old boys club.

I don't. Nor should anyone else.

MadYaker

No

NiallSparky wrote: »

It's like this in the Netherlands and it's awful. If you want to walk your dog or go for a run you need to carry an ID card? **** that.

I doubt it would make much difference. Most people have ID on them most of the time anyway, age card or drivers license. My age card is always in my wallet and my drivers license is always in my car. I would have no problem with a law making people carry ID on them at all times. I also think it would beneficial for everyones genome to be stored on a government database. They take a DNA sample at birth and it gets logged then its there forever. Solving murders and rapes would become A LOT easier. As well as other crimes. Sequencing human genomes is rapidly becoming cheaper but its still quite expensive so this might not be feasible for a few years yet.

squod wrote: »

The implication is that you trust the thieving shysters who run the country & the ''judiciary'', which is just and old boys club.

I don't. Nor should anyone else.

This attitude is becoming so tiresome.

gurramok

No

The US took my fingerprints on entry to the USA, why don't Ireland do it on entry to Ireland? I don't feel like a criminal either, its actually a way of letting the US know i'm an upstanding citizen

Del2005

bbam wrote: »

Definitely..
Fingerprints and DNA samples.
As should every citizen in the state be compelled to supply the same. I also feel that ID cards should be compulsory to carry at all times.

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem...

I know people will argue invasion of privacy and civil liberties, but that argument doesn't make sense, its not like the DNA sample or finger prints are taken in public with an anal probe !!

Everyone should be given 2 years to comply or face fines.

Why would you require an ID card if they have your DNA? The point of an ID card is to prove that you are who you claim you are, if you're DNA is in the system then they know who you are.

Shryke

gurramok wrote: »

The US took my fingerprints on entry to the USA, why don't Ireland do it on entry to Ireland? I don't feel like a criminal either, its actually a way of letting the US know i'm an upstanding citizen

No it's not. It's taking personal information from you and cataloging you as a potential criminal.

The Idyl Race

Ugh, there's always someone who loves the idea of the State knowing everything about us.

MadYaker

No

Del2005 wrote: »

Why would you require an ID card if they have your DNA? The point of an ID card is to prove that you are who you claim you are, if you're DNA is in the system then they know who you are.

If a garda stops you on the street and asks you who you are having your DNA on record isn't going to help him know if you're telling the truth. Unlsss they have some method of analysing your DNA on the spot and comparing it to the genomes they have on file. ID cards are way more practical.

minidazzler

No

bbam wrote: »

Definitely..
Fingerprints and DNA samples.
As should every citizen in the state be compelled to supply the same. I also feel that ID cards should be compulsory to carry at all times.

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem....

That is the dumbest argument that your camp make. It's absolutely retarded. Of course you have something to fear from the government having DNA and fingerprints on file for everyone. What if they take a dislike to someone and need him out of the way? Do you think governments aren't above using what they have to plant evidence?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Look at TSA in the US, how many terrorists have they realistically stopped? Yet, you can't take a piss in an airport without 20 camera's catching you.

Seaneh

No

I think all non-citizens should have to provide an iris scan and photo when entering, like when non-us citizens fly to the states.

We should know exactly who is entering our country and when. All Airports and ferry ports should have these measures.

We should be sharing the information with the authorities in Northern Ireland as well, seeing as we have an open boarder with them, anyone could enter either state and hide in the other.

tayto lover

No

A few years ago I became aware of an incident in my area.
A man who came here from eastern Europe was caught filming a young girl on his phone while she was in a public toilet of a shopping centre. He had his phone held under the partition and the girl was unaware of it. A security man and a cleaner had suspicions as he had been hanging around outside so they watched him and followed him into the toilet catching him in the act. Film on his camera which was seized by the Garda showed that he had been at the same thing in other places in the north east.
It transpired that this man had done time in his own country for sexually abusing a child and had came here after he was released just like Larry Murphy left here and went to Holland on his release.

I know of this story because I was told by the father of the young girl. He would not go to court as the girl would be terrified if she had to give evidence and anyway she was unaffected and didn't really know what was happening at the time.
Apparently the man returned to his own country that same week after having his flat raided by the Garda and his employer informed of what he was doing.

My point is that people like this should be fingerprinted so that the authorities of any country they visit become aware of their past.
I would have no problem with being fingerprinted if I visited another country.

Neewbie_noob

No

tayto lover wrote: »

A few years ago I became aware of an incident in my area.
A man who came here from eastern Europe was caught filming a young girl on his phone while she was in a public toilet of a shopping centre. He had his phone held under the partition and the girl was unaware of it. A security man and a cleaner had suspicions as he had been hanging around outside so they watched him and followed him into the toilet catching him in the act. Film on his camera which was seized by the Garda showed that he had been at the same thing in other places in the north east.
It transpired that this man had done time in his own country for sexually abusing a child and had came here after he was released just like Larry Murphy left here and went to Holland on his release.

I know of this story because I was told by the father of the young girl. He would not go to court as the girl would be terrified if she had to give evidence and anyway she was unaffected and didn't really know what was happening at the time.
Apparently the man returned to his own country that same week after having his flat raided by the Garda and his employer informed of what he was doing.

My point is that people like this should be fingerprinted so that the authorities of any country they visit become aware of their past.
I would have no problem with being fingerprinted if I visited another country.

Hear, hear. If Ireland had a dossier of fingerprints, then when this guy tried to leave (he would have ot scan again) then he would be stopped by the airport police.

bbam

No

Del2005 wrote: »

Why would you require an ID card if they have your DNA? The point of an ID card is to prove that you are who you claim you are, if you're DNA is in the system then they know who you are.

An ID card is useful in the street where DNA is more of an investigatory tool..

I see the usual "i wouldn't trust them with my DNA" and "I don't want to feel like a criminal" stuff...
Giving fingerprints or DNA samples doesn't mean your a criminal, so why should you feel like one, unless you actually have something to hide..

This would make huge in-roads into solving crime..

gurramok

No

Shryke wrote: »

No it's not. It's taking personal information from you and cataloging you as a potential criminal.

It ain't just me! Everyone who enters and leaves the States is fingerprinted, everyone is in the same boat. If you have nothing to hide like possibly 99.9% of people, its a non-issue.

If I commit a serious crime in the States, at least tracking me down via fingerprinting will be justice for the victim, yes? Again, nothing wrong with that.

ResearchWill

It can take any where from a few minutes to a few hours to match fingerprints depending on the number stored and the speed of the computer.

At the moment Ireland uses a UK lab to anaylise DNA as we don't have the resources here, to the best of my knolowdge. So are we going to ask all tourists to wait in Dublin Airport for how ever long it needs to be sure they are not naughty.

CSI is not real you do know that, what they do in seconds can take weeks in real life.

bbam

No

minidazzler wrote: »

That is the dumbest argument that your camp make. It's absolutely retarded. Of course you have something to fear from the government having DNA and fingerprints on file for everyone. What if they take a dislike to someone and need him out of the way? Do you think governments aren't above using what they have to plant evidence?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Look at TSA in the US, how many terrorists have they realistically stopped? Yet, you can't take a piss in an airport without 20 camera's catching you.

I don't have " a camp ".
And do you seriously think if some unethical arm of our government wanted you out of the way, not having your DNA on file isn't going to save you..
But then again your tin foil hat is probably protection enough for your camp

jam_mac_jam

No, why should I be treated like a criminal when I am not? Because I have nothing to hide? Because the US does it? Of course not. Maybe we should be all watched all the time in case we do something wrong, like a thought crime? Well if you have nothing to hide...

tayto lover

No

ResearchWill wrote: »

It can take any where from a few minutes to a few hours to match fingerprints depending on the number stored and the speed of the computer.

At the moment Ireland uses a UK lab to anaylise DNA as we don't have the resources here, to the best of my knolowdge. So are we going to ask all tourists to wait in Dublin Airport for how ever long it needs to be sure they are not naughty.

CSI is not real you do know that, what they do in seconds can take weeks in real life.

Regardless of how long it takes it can also save time and effort.
If an offender has left the country then the Garda would know where he went and not have to spend time searching the country looking for him. They could also alert the country he went to that he is now there.

old hippy

It's the thin end of the wedge. I see the old "if you have nothing to hide" has been trotted out. I don't like it but I submit to it when I go to the States.

Surveillance states shouldn't be the norm. Nothing pc about that.

kirving

If you have nothing to hide.... is the worst argument ever.

I'm not a criminal, but no way in hell will I carry ID everywhere I go just for the sake of it.

Honestly, I don't really care about the odd criminal or two crossing our borders. Catching them is not worth the inconvenience for everyone else.

As of now, most of the most dangerous criminals aren't even on the run because there's no arrest warrant. So you wouldn't catch them anyway. If the crime was serious enough to be arrested at tge airport, the Gardai should alread have caught them.

ResearchWill

tayto lover wrote: »

Regardless of how long it takes it can also save time and effort.
If an offender has left the country then the Garda would know where he went and not have to spend time searching the country looking for him. They could also alert the country he went to that he is now there.

Can you give figures of the number of criminal doing what you say. So when we invest millions or from past tract record billions in this scheme we know it is actually solving a problem.

We can't stop cocaine comming into the country through our huge coast line how is finger printing and DNA from everyone going to stop people who don't want to be detected coming in by boat. Also the scheme will destroy our all ready fragile tourist economy. I know people who refuse to travel to the USA because of the security they employ, not criminals just people who would rather spend their money in a country that welcomes them as a honest person not a potentional criminal.

Wabbit Ears

No

I wonder just how many of the NO camp are currently Gmail and Google chrome or apple Ipad/Iphone users who are blissfully unaware of their naivety!!

old hippy

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I wonder just how many of the NO camp are currently Gmail and Google chrome or apple Ipad/Iphone users who are blissfully unaware of their naivety!!

Pesky wabbit

ResearchWill

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I wonder just how many of the NO camp are currently Gmail and Google chrome or apple Ipad/Iphone users who are blissfully unaware of their naivety!!

So you are saying gmail takes my DNA while my iPad steals my fingerprints.

tayto lover

No

Kevin Irving wrote: »

If you have nothing to hide.... is the worst argument ever.

I'm not a criminal, but no way in hell will I carry ID everywhere I go just for the sake of it.

Honestly, I don't really care about the odd criminal or two crossing our borders. Catching them is not worth the inconvenience for everyone else.

As of now, most of the most dangerous criminals aren't even on the run because there's no arrest warrant. So you wouldn't catch them anyway. If the crime was serious enough to be arrested at tge airport, the Gardai should alread have caught them.

Do you carry a Driving Licence?
Do you carry a Dole Card?
Don't you carry a passport when you travel?
A fingerprint does not weigh anything. It can prove your innocence and speed your travel just as it can curtail the movements of the guilty or wanted.

kirving

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you carry a Driving Licence?
Do you carry a Dole Card?
Don't you carry a passport when you travel?
A fingerprint does not weigh anything. It can prove your innocence and speed your travel just as it can curtail the movements of the guilty or wanted.

I carry a passport when I travel because I have to and I agree that a fingerprint would be more convenient in cases. A fingerprint wouldn't replace a passport though, it would be an additional inconvenience.

I'm not one of these civil liberties types either. I think dole recipients should need a passport as ID, and spending should be monitored.

A fingerprint can just as easily implicate you in a crime too.

tayto lover

No

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can you give figures of the number of criminal doing what you say. So when we invest millions or from past tract record billions in this scheme we know it is actually solving a problem.

We can't stop cocaine comming into the country through our huge coast line how is finger printing and DNA from everyone going to stop people who don't want to be detected coming in by boat. Also the scheme will destroy our all ready fragile tourist economy. I know people who refuse to travel to the USA because of the security they employ, not criminals just people who would rather spend their money in a country that welcomes them as a honest person not a potentional criminal.

I don't know how many criminals are doing that and neither does anyone else BUT if it stopped only a few and spared the pain of the victims, which can last a lifetime, then it would be worth it to me. Having it in force might prevent very many from attempting to get in here so that they can continue their law-breaking unimpeded. I really don't see that it can do any damage at all.

kirving

If a single victim feels better because of a costly, intrusive and inconvenient system, is it worth it?

ResearchWill

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know how many criminals are doing that and neither does anyone else BUT if stopped only a few and spared the pain of the victims, which can last a lifetime, then it would be worth it to me. Having it in force might prevent very many from attempting to get in here so that they can continue their law-breaking unimpeded. I really don't see that it can do any damage at all.

So to be clear, we don't know if we have a problem, if we do have a problem we don't know the size of it, we don't know how much it will cost and we don't know how effective it will be. We don't know how many tourists it will put off or the cost to the economy, we don't know will it be illegal under EU law.

Does the person who came up with this idea work for the HSE sounds just like what our health ministry would think up.

So you don't mind spending say a billion a year to stop one old lady been mugged. With out knowing the size of the problem or the cost of the fix how can anyone say it's a good idea.

Wompa1

ResearchWill wrote: »

So to be clear, we don't know if we have a problem, if we do have a problem we don't know the size of it, we don't know how much it will cost and we don't know how effective it will be. We don't know how many tourists it will put off or the cost to the economy, we don't know will it be illegal under EU law.

Does the person who came up with this idea work for the HSE sounds just like what our health ministry would think up.

So you don't mind spending say a billion a year to stop one old lady been mugged. With out knowing the size of the problem or the cost of the fix how can anyone say it's a good idea.

I've known a couple of people who said they would not go to the US because of the invasion of their privacy when entering. Those two people went to Australia....

I've travelled to both. Australias border patrol was much stricter in my eyes. Don't tend to hear much complaints about that.

mr kr0nik

bbam wrote: »

An ID card is useful in the street where DNA is more of an investigatory tool..

I see the usual "i wouldn't trust them with my DNA" and "I don't want to feel like a criminal" stuff...
Giving fingerprints or DNA samples doesn't mean your a criminal, so why should you feel like one, unless you actually have something to hide..

This would make huge in-roads into solving crime..

Someone shakes your hand then you probably have some of their DNA on it. Or else drying your hands on a towel in a public restroom or putting your hand on a door knob somewhere.

Unless you wear gloves, you'll always have someones elses DNA on you somewhere, and someone else probably has yours as well.

Try explaining to the guards why your DNA appeared at a crime scene when all you want to do is go on your holidays.

ResearchWill

Wompa1 wrote: »

I've known a couple of people who said they would not go to the US because of the invasion of their privacy when entering. Those two people went to Australia....

I've travelled to both. Australias border patrol was much stricter in my eyes. Don't tend to hear much complaints about that.

I have travelled to both, no problem in either, but perception is the issue, (but did feel more welcome in Australia) if people traveling to spend their money for a weekend or a week or two feel it's just not worth the trouble they may go to another place.

Death and Taxes

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

As the thread title says, should people be fingerprinted upon entering and leaving the country, regardless of citizenship?

Here are my reasons.

Criminals who (are presumably fingerprinted by police by electronic means) will be seen leaving the country if they are remanded on bail, although their passport is often seized during this, they could easily flee to the UK with a driving license, other ID, or if they are citizens of other countries, they can use another passport.

If a person is wanted in Ireland (for, just say, child maintenance reasons), when they re-enter Ireland they will be apprehended when their fingerprints "set off alarm bells".

If someone is suspicially entering and leaving the country they can easily be tracked.

This can also be used to prevent identity theft, illegal immigration and welfare fraud (say, people wh might be claiming welfare in Timbuktu and back in Ireland).

In case someone loses or "loses" their passport or ID in transit, they can merely scan their fingerprint and their photo will come up on screen.

If a dossier is kept of every Irish citzen's fingerprints of foreigners' fingerprints (inlcuding British) in Ireland, if a crime is commited, then the perpetrator can quickly, efficiently and easily be tracked.

I am aware that the open border with NI will pose a problem, if the UK don't impose such border restrictions on people then they can easily fly to Belfast and then get the train / bus / car to the Republic, unless we keep a dossier with the UK.

So what do y'all think.

An in before someone just responds with "NO" or the PC brigade and Liberals responding with "it's an invasion of our privacy".

So, Discuss.

Or they could just drive to Newry!

UCDVet

1.) Fingerprint tests are not reliable. It sounds great, but they don't work.

Judge Pollak, who is a former dean of the law schools at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, also noted ''alarmingly high'' error rates when fingerprint examiners took proficiency tests; in 1995 only 44 percent of 156 law enforcement examiners could correctly identify all five prints in the test, and in a 1998 study the number improved to only 58 percent.

2.) Even if the tests were - it's trivial to fake your finger prints. The scanning would have to be done by a machine and the processing rate would have to be high enough to handle large volumes. There is no way people wouldn't easily cheat the system.

More than that - it's trivial to STEAL other people's fingerprints. They aren't secure - everything you touch has them!

3.) The borders in Ireland are *not* secure. Not even close. If you fly in to Ireland, sure, you'll need to show a Passport. The people working at the airport either don't know or don't care about actual immigration laws - and I'm saying that from actual experience. I was allowed to leave and then re-enter the country, at the airport, while in-violation of the law. They were happy enough to open to a new page, and stamp my passport, they couldn't be arsed to do the math and see that I'd over-stayed my visa.

And that's at the airport. That's the height of our security. You can take a ferry in from the UK or France with nothing and nobody will ask. Others advertise that they'll accept a 'utility bill' as evidence.

4.) Even if you could get every entrance to the country secured - you'd huge network of everyone's finger-prints and whether or not they were criminals or not. I mean, assuming we magically improved the detection rates to 100% and stopped people from modify their actual fingerprints and using prosthetic ones. That means every port needs always-on network connection. If the network goes down - you can't allow people into the country.

How reliable a system do you think the government is going to create? Keep in mind the as reliability approaches 100%, the cost of the system grows exponentially. Fault-tolerant, high-reliability, low-latency, distributed systems are not cheap.

Last I checked, Ireland doesn't have a lot of extra cash to spare. Surely, we could spend the money more effectively....especially considering....

5.) And I can't reiterate this enough.....it just won't work. It really won't. Criminals aren't stupid and they rarely follow the rules. While you inconvenience millions of honest travelers and cost taxpayers millions of euros, the real bad-guys are just going to get a connecting flight somewhere else and switch to a ferry. Or someone's going to have a friend who is happy enough to look the other way for 50 euro. Or will know a guy who can print incredibly realistic, undetectable to the naked eye, fake finger prints out of a latex-like material.

And all of that doesn't even touch on the moral implications or privacy concerns. But that'd only make sense to debate if the system could work....but it can't. Not fingerprints anyway.

twinQuins

bbam wrote: »

Definitely..
Fingerprints and DNA samples.
As should every citizen in the state be compelled to supply the same. I also feel that ID cards should be compulsory to carry at all times.

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem...

If I've done nothing wrong then I should be left alone. Our legal system operates on the presumption of innocence and it's a good principle.

Tell you what, since you obviously have nothing to hide why not post up your name, address, PPS number and bank details?

Wompa1

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have travelled to both, no problem in either, but perception is the issue, (but did feel more welcome in Australia) if people traveling to spend their money for a weekend or a week or two feel it's just not worth the trouble they may go to another place.

What was said to you in America to make you feel unwelcome? Was one of the Border Patrol people a pr1ck to you?

Where else would they go? The UK scans your eye, Australia do both, US does both.

I'm not entirely sure about the rest of Europe. I know when I went to Greece I felt really unwelcome and that was from one European country to another one.

ResearchWill

Wompa1 wrote: »

What was said to you in America to make you feel unwelcome? Was one of the Border Patrol people a pr1ck to you?

Where else would they go? The UK scans your eye, Australia do both, US does both.

I'm not entirely sure about the rest of Europe. I know when I went to Greece I felt really unwelcome and that was from one European country to another one.

I did not say I was made to feel unwelcome, I said I was made to feel more welcome in Australia.

Wompa1

ResearchWill wrote: »

I did not say I was made to feel unwelcome, I said I was made to feel more welcome in Australia.

ok. I was made to feel more welcome by my dog when I got home in the evenings than in either Australia or the US.

ResearchWill

Wompa1 wrote: »

ok. I was made to feel more welcome by my dog when I got home in the evenings than in either Australia or the US.

But we are not talking about your dog. I clearly said I had no problems in either country, but felt more welcome in Australia, because a border potoral agent opened a line for me as he saw my mother who I was travelling with was elderly.

I just pointed out exactly what I said as you some how read more welcome as implying that the USA was unwelcoming. As they say should have gone to spec savers.

V_Moth

A couple of (common) misconceptions mentioned in this thread:

-You have show your Passport when picking up Social Welfare payments at the Post Office. Also, there is a new card with photo ID being rolled out.
-Foot and car passengers on ferries into/out of Britain are checked for ID. Same goes for France.

Also, a database of DNA and fingerprints would be too costly and complex to be feasible.

tayto lover

No

ResearchWill wrote: »

So to be clear, we don't know if we have a problem, if we do have a problem we don't know the size of it, we don't know how much it will cost and we don't know how effective it will be. We don't know how many tourists it will put off or the cost to the economy, we don't know will it be illegal under EU law.

Does the person who came up with this idea work for the HSE sounds just like what our health ministry would think up.

So you don't mind spending say a billion a year to stop one old lady been mugged. With out knowing the size of the problem or the cost of the fix how can anyone say it's a good idea.

No. I said "I" didn't know.
Maybe tourists would feel a lot safer if such requirement were in force.
Neither do I know who came up with the idea, I just gave my opinions on it.
We also don't know how much it would cost so your rant of a billion might be far too high or even too low.
Without knowing the cost how can anyone say it's a bad idea, it could be well worth it. It could save many a persons life and we don't know how much a life is worth either.

strobe

minidazzler wrote: »

That is the dumbest argument that your camp make. It's absolutely retarded. Of course you have something to fear from the government having DNA and fingerprints on file for everyone. What if they take a dislike to someone and need him out of the way? Do you think governments aren't above using what they have to plant evidence? .

But if someone was willing and able to access the DNA database, remove your sample to plant, get your fingerprints and forge them at the crime scene, and do this and what else they'd have to do, well enough to ensure you were convicted of the rape or murder or whatever... well, what's stopping these guys from just using your finger prints and DNA that could be taken on arrest and doing the same? Or just having you stabbed in the throat by some €1000 smack head hitman?
If the government are willing to and capable of using a DNA or finger print database to frame you for some crime and get away with it, then they don't need a DNA or fingerprint database to get you out of the way at all.