[SomeKid]

Ever read that news story from Europe, where they had a rape in a small town, and decided to test every man's DNA? After all, it only nets the giulty...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/14155275.htm?source=yahoodist&content=ksc_news

All to update their databases. I wonder how long before every gun-owner must routinely have their guns checked, to make sure none have escaped.

[Soybomb]

I've always thought it odd that so many people don't have a problem with giving their fingerprints to get a carry permit. Nothing like being treated like a criminal because you own a gun. Most don't seem to think its unreasonable though.

[GTSteve03]

Shoot, here you have to get fingerprinted to get a driver's liscence. I'm sure that and the picture taken aren't just kept in the DOT database and never given out to any other gov't agency... :rolleyes:

[Dmack_901]

Thanks for reminding me to stop by the PD to make sure they didn't keep my prints when I decided to volunteer at a local art camp. Check if I was a 17 y/o child rapist... keep prints on file for my life... I see how they could have gotten confused.

[ARperson]

I don't mind being fingerprinted because when I was a small child, my mom took "advantage" of the local PD offering to have children fingerprinted for identification in the future if need be. Sort of like the fingerprint/DNA kits that are available today, the only difference being that today's parents don't have to turn in any of the info until it needs to be used.

Since I'm already in the system, what's another ink print on a card?

I'm much more irked about the use of my social security number for everything aside from social security. Does anybody know of a way to provide an alternative identification number? The damn utility companies (or anybody else) don't need to be knowing my soc number. :fire:

[Standing Wolf]

Kansas could no longer locate replacement parts or anyone to service the old system, which was launched in 1990 and upgraded in 1998. The first phase was funded with a $752,000 homeland security grant. The KBI is applying for similar grants to pay the balance. All upgrades should be completed by January 2007.

Your tax dollars and mine at play.

[MD_Willington]

The FBI and DHS have my prints & Index finger biometrics on file already, been on file since 2000 and were updated almost yearly until 2005... My right index finger biometric is on my Green Card... A full set of prints were taken with my state issued Alien Firearms License... And I'll probably get another set done when I pony up the cash for my CPL...

I think I've been printed more times than the average criminal... :rolleyes:

[SomeKid]

I think I've been printed more times than the average criminal...

Because you are worse than the average criminal, you are a lawabiding gun-owner.

[mp510]

I don't really see this as a big deal. They already run your information when you get pulled over, so this is nothing that new.

Also, they are not creating a database out of them, and they make that very clear.

[SomeKid]

mp, read the article. Or at least read the first few paragraphs.

The tests in Kansas are part of a bigger $3.6 million upgrade to the KBI’s statewide fingerprint database, unveiled Tuesday by the KBI and Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.

They are going into a database.

[MattC]

Prints scanned in the field will not be stored.

While this statement is likely true, the greater implication is that the technology allows for storing the fingerprints and this is a likely step after acclimating drivers to the "scan only" approach. If people get used to being scanned, they stop thinking they have a right to keep their fingers to themselves.

The article reports that the trials will also occur in Milwaukee, WI. To the best of my knowledge, a driver is required to present a driver's license if they are driving on a public road and asked for one by a LEO. Fingerprints? I think the driver has legal rights to refuse being printed if not taken into custody. Ofcourse, as a LEO once informed me when I was working at a weekend security gig, "If someone's not willing to immediately identify themselves, you know they've got something to hide. I mean, think about it, would you hesititate if a cop asked you to ID yourself? No!" So, not complying with the LEO may lead to 30 minutes or more on the side of the road and a lot of stress.

And I agree with ARperson about the social security numbers. The Bush administration was making talk awhile back about being able to opt-out of Social Security. While I lament the unlikelyhood of the opt-out actually happening, I wonder if that would have included the option to opt out of the mandated federal ID for everyone with a job.

-Matt

[Deavis]

I've always thought it odd that so many people don't have a problem with giving their fingerprints to get a carry permit. Nothing like being treated like a criminal because you own a gun. Most don't seem to think its unreasonable though.

There is no way around giving your fingerprints up for a CHL. The law says that you must not be a felon and you need to prove it. The only way for you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is to have your fingerprints, which are not corruptible, for a check against a list of known felons. It is as simple as that. You want to play, then you have to pay. I'm shocked they don't require it for a gun purchase, not that I want that, but then again they have a NICS check as a substitute and an ID check.

If the law requires positive ID, you have no other way of providing that under the current system of identification we have in place without a secondary check of some sort. If you had a secure ID, this would not be an issue, but you don't. The storage part is, obviously, the crux of the issue and should be what is changed. While I recognize the need for checking the print, in the absence of another system, there is no reason to keep it except for future use against you.

[Sleeping Dog]

I wonder how long before every gun-owner must routinely have their guns checked, to make sure none have escaped.
I check mine periodically, for that very reason.

Also, to make sure that no strange guns have joined the collection that I don't remember buying, or that I just forgot I had. That happens too.

Ya can't be too careful. :)

[Soybomb]

There is no way around giving your fingerprints up for a CHL. The law says that you must not be a felon and you need to prove it. The only way for you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is to have your fingerprints, which are not corruptible, for a check against a list of known felons. It is as simple as that. You want to play, then you have to pay. I'm shocked they don't require it for a gun purchase, not that I want that, but then again they have a NICS check as a substitute and an ID check.

Or instead of trying to justify it, you could fight against it. Somehow PA and NH both issued me a CHL and never got my prints. If the system isn't broke, don't fix it. That is exactly the type of rolling over and taking it I'm talking about.

[DRZinn]

Prints scanned in the field will not be stored.Yet.

[asknight]

The utility companies have no legal basis for requiring SSN's for service. Their identifier is the physical address in which the utility will be connected. I refuse to give them a SSN when getting new services. It usually makes them stutter, or ask again, sometimes even demanding it. I tell them I do not have one, and if they want to press the issue, the Public Service Commission will be notified. They then proceed with gathering address info, name on the account, etc.

I have also noticed that when calling to report a service outage, tech support, etc that they will ask for the SSN that is showing on the account. When I ask them to tell me the SSN that's showing, they decline. I then tell them that there is not one on the account now, will not be in the future, and that it's none of their business.

On the other hand, they probably do have my SSN on my account in which they acquired illegally by searching the federal SS database and attributing it to my name and address. But I'm not going to give it to them myself.

My final rant on the subject... recently I purchased a firearm at a dealer that I'd never done business with previously. The clerk handed my 4473 form back to me after I filled it out and said "You forgot to fill in the SSN box." I looked at the info box he was pointing to and promptly handed it back. He blinked and replied that it was required to purchase a firearm. Yea. Right. I became angered and said that if they wished to sell me a firearm, they would actually read the damned box. Something to the effect of "Not required but may help properly identify a person in case a problem occurs in approval." Since apparently my name isn't that common among criminals, I've never been delayed without a SSN provided. Anyway, the guy doesn't apologize or accept that it's optional, but calls it in anyway with a "proceed" from NICS returned. I won't be doing business with them anymore.