Fingerprint Violation
Pages: 12
Greetings fellow cplusplusers - long time no speak.
Has any of you guys heard about the fingerprint scam whereby an individuals fingerprints gets digitally recorded and then used to implicate the person in a variety of criminal activities.
I have two friends working in the security/intelligence sectors who have shown me how after scanning a persons fingerprints digitally, you can print them out on a rubber/silicon base which can then be used as a rubber stamp to imprint that fingerprints on any surface that would serve to incriminate the individual.
How does one deal with this type of thing going into the future?
Is it thus safe to submit your fingerprints to recruitment or other agencies who need to verify your criminal status. In certain countries it is claimed that criminal status checks via fingerprint verification is much faster going through some third party online system as opposed to using the police record system, therefore the online system is preferred.
Even if these third party fingerprint verification agencies claim that they will never use your fingerprints for any other purpose than fingerprint verification, my question is: can you really trust them. I mean which scam artist will ever tell you that they are going to scam you.
What are your guys feelings about this: personally it scares me. Imagine coming home from a night out where you partied a bit hard thus rendering some events of the night a little hazy (many of us have been there) and then later having the police arrest you for your fingerprints being at some crime scene during a time of the night when it may be hard to verify/alibi your actions/whereabouts.
Even if you are never convicted of a crime the mere fact that your fingerprints are at a crime scene would give the police probable cause to "toss your underwear draw" thereby violating your rights and privacy.
There are probably countless ways in which an individual can be implicated in a crime using a rubber stamp of their fingerprints. This would even make me cautious around people I know such as by a work function or some other event.
My advice would be to limit the number of fingerprint scans you allow to be taken and definitely not give it Willy Nilly to just any organisation, especially for some recruitment agency where you have no guarantee even of ending up with the said "job".
Has any of you guys heard about the fingerprint scam whereby an individuals fingerprints gets digitally recorded and then used to implicate the person in a variety of criminal activities.
I have two friends working in the security/intelligence sectors who have shown me how after scanning a persons fingerprints digitally, you can print them out on a rubber/silicon base which can then be used as a rubber stamp to imprint that fingerprints on any surface that would serve to incriminate the individual.
How does one deal with this type of thing going into the future?
Is it thus safe to submit your fingerprints to recruitment or other agencies who need to verify your criminal status. In certain countries it is claimed that criminal status checks via fingerprint verification is much faster going through some third party online system as opposed to using the police record system, therefore the online system is preferred.
Even if these third party fingerprint verification agencies claim that they will never use your fingerprints for any other purpose than fingerprint verification, my question is: can you really trust them. I mean which scam artist will ever tell you that they are going to scam you.
What are your guys feelings about this: personally it scares me. Imagine coming home from a night out where you partied a bit hard thus rendering some events of the night a little hazy (many of us have been there) and then later having the police arrest you for your fingerprints being at some crime scene during a time of the night when it may be hard to verify/alibi your actions/whereabouts.
Even if you are never convicted of a crime the mere fact that your fingerprints are at a crime scene would give the police probable cause to "toss your underwear draw" thereby violating your rights and privacy.
There are probably countless ways in which an individual can be implicated in a crime using a rubber stamp of their fingerprints. This would even make me cautious around people I know such as by a work function or some other event.
My advice would be to limit the number of fingerprint scans you allow to be taken and definitely not give it Willy Nilly to just any organisation, especially for some recruitment agency where you have no guarantee even of ending up with the said "job".
I would not worry about it. If this becomes widespread instead of something from a bond movie, then using fingerprints will become obsolete and we will move on to retina scans or dna sampling or whatever. The bad guys eventually defeat and exploit the current tech, so new tech is created and the cycle never ends.
There are already some cases where identical twins had one bad twin causing the other to be investigated. On occasion, the police must violate some privacy to determine if you are indeed the suspect. Sometimes warrants are given out too freely. But if you have nothing to hide, there is no problem if your country is decent. If your country is oppressive you are screwed anyway -- guilty until proven innocent is hard to beat.
You can also alter your FPs if you have to give them for any reason other than scanner access on a laptop. If you know it is coming. Crooks know a variety of ways to do this from gluing up the fingers to acid or other small injuries.
There are already some cases where identical twins had one bad twin causing the other to be investigated. On occasion, the police must violate some privacy to determine if you are indeed the suspect. Sometimes warrants are given out too freely. But if you have nothing to hide, there is no problem if your country is decent. If your country is oppressive you are screwed anyway -- guilty until proven innocent is hard to beat.
You can also alter your FPs if you have to give them for any reason other than scanner access on a laptop. If you know it is coming. Crooks know a variety of ways to do this from gluing up the fingers to acid or other small injuries.
Last edited on
| I would not worry about it. If this becomes widespread instead of something from a bond movie, then using fingerprints will become obsolete and we will move on to retina scans or dna sampling or whatever. |
the problem I have with this is that by time "that time" comes (when we move on from using fingerprint forensics) a person can be falsely implicated and go to jail or have their rights violated. Even going to a holding cell for interrogation can be dangerous for you in the USA as well.
| But if you have nothing to hide, there is no problem |
wrong - you can be falsely implicated even if you have nothing to hide.
and everybody is entitled to their privacy to hide whatever they want as long as it is nothing illegal or a danger to society.
| if your country is decent |
whether your country is descent or not has nothing to do with you handing your fingerprints to third party organisations most likely linked to/controlled by big corporations.
and lets not forget that prisons have become a lucrative business for corporations nowadays.
oh yes - many prisons are run by these corporations these days, because prisons are good investments.
so much for our descent countries who put this type of power in the hands of corporations.
KunjeeB, I agree with your fears. If you're marked as an enemy (e.g. for political reasons, but not limited to that), then the police could frame you. I'm sure the police have framed people in the past. But I don't have any suggestions at the moment... many countries will probably drift closer to some dystopia that's a combination of 1984 and Brave New World.
You can't use fingerprints to frame someone of a crime they wouldn't be a suspect of to begin with. If you take a thousand people there will several sets of people whose prints are indistinguishable even to humans, let alone software. If all you have is a set of prints you can't use them to query a database of prints and get back a name. Prints are only used to narrow down lists of suspects.
So, if I were to copy Ganado's fingerprints, I couldn't use them to frame him of robbing a jewelry store (assuming he doesn't work in one). I could only use them to frame him of something he could reasonably be a suspect of, like robbing his workplace or murdering a friend of his. If it was something completely disconnected it would be impossible to place him in the scene of the crime and be a candidate owner of those fingerprints.
So, if I were to copy Ganado's fingerprints, I couldn't use them to frame him of robbing a jewelry store (assuming he doesn't work in one). I could only use them to frame him of something he could reasonably be a suspect of, like robbing his workplace or murdering a friend of his. If it was something completely disconnected it would be impossible to place him in the scene of the crime and be a candidate owner of those fingerprints.
Last edited on
I wouldn't start volunteering my fingerprints or any other personal biometric data (including DNA) to anybody, the police anywhere least of all, and only if I had to.
BTW Retina scan technology is here, has been for years.
The police have only one job - to secure a conviction! In some of the best and safe democratic nations in the world noble cause corruption is a reality.
BTW Retina scan technology is here, has been for years.
The police have only one job - to secure a conviction! In some of the best and safe democratic nations in the world noble cause corruption is a reality.
@Ganado
And I'd bet its not only limited to the police - organisation can use other third party security based agencies to do it as well - in those case the police only end up doing their jobs by following the evidence trail.
@Ganado
you lost me with the 1984 part - what happened in that year that is relevant to the OP.
@helios;
At first when reading this I raised an eyebrow due to not understanding what would make someone a suspect in the first place however, after reading your remaining response ie:
then I would have to say we are in agreement here, although as you so succinctly put it, Genado could be frame for murdering someone he knows which could prove quite crap for his life if he was falsely convicted and given 17 to life in prison. I mean if I was him I'd be pissed at you for doing this to me.
Worst yet than this hypothetical situation theorized between yourself and Ganado is that in reality Genado will be confronted with an organisation (his work or some group) that is most likely linked (or have some dealings) with other organisations/groups which would imply that the "sphere" in which he (Ganado) can be hurt/affected increases (and it will be exponential).
this actually struct a chord with me of a time when I worked for a company that used fingerprinting as a bio metric for access control. Initially the systems gave much errors and needed the expert to come in and tweak it. I suppose it was as you point out, the number of people in the org 4000+ had sets of individuals whose fingerprints were very similar, hence the tweaking of the system to find some other related differentiating factors...
| If you're marked as an enemy (e.g. for political reasons, but not limited to that), then the police could frame you. I'm sure the police have framed people in the past. |
And I'd bet its not only limited to the police - organisation can use other third party security based agencies to do it as well - in those case the police only end up doing their jobs by following the evidence trail.
@Ganado
| many countries will probably drift closer to some dystopia that's a combination of 1984 and Brave New World. |
you lost me with the 1984 part - what happened in that year that is relevant to the OP.
@helios;
| You can't use fingerprints to frame someone of a crime they wouldn't be a suspect of to begin with. |
At first when reading this I raised an eyebrow due to not understanding what would make someone a suspect in the first place however, after reading your remaining response ie:
| So, if I were to copy Ganado's fingerprints, I couldn't use them to frame him of robbing a jewelry store (assuming he doesn't work in one). I could only use them to framed him of something he could reasonably be a suspect of, like robbing his workplace or murdering a friend of his. |
then I would have to say we are in agreement here, although as you so succinctly put it, Genado could be frame for murdering someone he knows which could prove quite crap for his life if he was falsely convicted and given 17 to life in prison. I mean if I was him I'd be pissed at you for doing this to me.
Worst yet than this hypothetical situation theorized between yourself and Ganado is that in reality Genado will be confronted with an organisation (his work or some group) that is most likely linked (or have some dealings) with other organisations/groups which would imply that the "sphere" in which he (Ganado) can be hurt/affected increases (and it will be exponential).
| If you take a thousand people there will several sets of people whose prints are indistinguishable even to humans, let alone software. |
this actually struct a chord with me of a time when I worked for a company that used fingerprinting as a bio metric for access control. Initially the systems gave much errors and needed the expert to come in and tweak it. I suppose it was as you point out, the number of people in the org 4000+ had sets of individuals whose fingerprints were very similar, hence the tweaking of the system to find some other related differentiating factors...
Last edited on
@againtry
I agree with you 100%.
most people assume that when they dealing with an official authority like the police / government then everything is to be trusted when in fact that is when you should be weary and not scared or complacent against questioning anything that doesn't exactly add up.
| I wouldn't start volunteering my fingerprints or any other personal bio-metric data (including DNA) to anybody, the police anywhere least of all, and only if I had to. |
I agree with you 100%.
most people assume that when they dealing with an official authority like the police / government then everything is to be trusted when in fact that is when you should be weary and not scared or complacent against questioning anything that doesn't exactly add up.
| Genado could be frame for murdering someone he knows which could prove quite crap for his life if he was falsely convicted and given 17 to life in prison. I mean if I was him I'd be pissed at you for doing this to me. Worst yet than this hypothetical situation theorized between yourself and Ganado is that in reality Genado will be confronted with an organisation (his work or some group) that is most likely linked (or have some dealings) with other organisations/groups which would imply that the "sphere" in which he (Ganado) can be hurt/affected increases (and it will be exponential). |
If fingerprints are so unreliable and suspects are otherwise defined by their employment status, bond movie fiction, and the weird mention of reasonability, why do police invariably dust for fingerprints at the scene of a jewelry heist and any other appropriate crime scene? Why take our prints ever if it’s true they are so inaccurate.
And then there’s DNA, compulsory sampling is the norm if you’re arrested/charged. Nah, not necessary, he’s not a resonable suspect. What?
The current classic case of misuse of biometric data on an industrial scale by a dictatorship is china and its face recognition system for the whole population whereby everybody in that incubator of doom gets a social credit score based on their 24 hour tracking record.
Just ask the people of Hong Kong how ‘nice’ and ‘fair’ their Mr Policeman is.
And then there’s DNA, compulsory sampling is the norm if you’re arrested/charged. Nah, not necessary, he’s not a resonable suspect. What?
The current classic case of misuse of biometric data on an industrial scale by a dictatorship is china and its face recognition system for the whole population whereby everybody in that incubator of doom gets a social credit score based on their 24 hour tracking record.
Just ask the people of Hong Kong how ‘nice’ and ‘fair’ their Mr Policeman is.
| Most people assume that when they dealing with an official authority like the police / government then everything is to be trusted when in fact that is when you should be weary and not scared or complacent against questioning anything that doesn't exactly add up. |
If you live in the United States, the fifth amendment is your friend. Never talk to the police.
The reason is, when you allow for unreliability
a.) on your end;
b.) on the police's end; and
c.) on potential witnesses' end
Almost any random info you provide can be used to manufacture plausible connections between you and some crime you had nothing to do with.
If the police approach you and ask for a statement, politely decline. If you are arrested for any reason, ask for a lawyer and say nothing until they're present. No matter if you're innocent: even truthful information can be incriminating -- by drawing connections between you and a crime.
The police need information to implicate you, so the less they have the better off you are.
Last edited on
And ... don't resist.
Extremely important but even then that might not be a saving grace, anywhere in the world, but especially in the gun-happy US.
In fact you could be walking_in_public_while_black and not wearing necking_protection and be summarily asphyxiated just for the fun of it.
But the US is not alone - the black shirts are everywhere - all victims of schoolyard bullying and too much sugar and red flavoring in their diet as they patrol and get revenge for a tormented childhood.
Remember, don't resist and keep your mouth shut and always lie with your face down so they can swipe your wallet.
Extremely important but even then that might not be a saving grace, anywhere in the world, but especially in the gun-happy US.
In fact you could be walking_in_public_while_black and not wearing necking_protection and be summarily asphyxiated just for the fun of it.
But the US is not alone - the black shirts are everywhere - all victims of schoolyard bullying and too much sugar and red flavoring in their diet as they patrol and get revenge for a tormented childhood.
Remember, don't resist and keep your mouth shut and always lie with your face down so they can swipe your wallet.
DNA "evidence" has been used to imprison people for crimes they did not commit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19412819
Just having your DNA or fingerprints on file is enough for you to become a suspect of a crime you didn't commit - evidence contamination and administrative "errors" do happen, even if you discount the possibility of malicious activities.
If someone is able to obtain and plant your DNA or fingerprints at a crime scene then it is entirely possible that you will be arrested. If your only alibi is that you were asleep in bed alone at the time of the crime then... good luck because if it is a case of your word vs. the "evidence", then you will lose.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19412819
Just having your DNA or fingerprints on file is enough for you to become a suspect of a crime you didn't commit - evidence contamination and administrative "errors" do happen, even if you discount the possibility of malicious activities.
If someone is able to obtain and plant your DNA or fingerprints at a crime scene then it is entirely possible that you will be arrested. If your only alibi is that you were asleep in bed alone at the time of the crime then... good luck because if it is a case of your word vs. the "evidence", then you will lose.
DNA is different from fingerprints. A DNA sample can be matched to a person with a known probability of error. You simply sequence the sample, which converts into a string of bits, and then run an algorithm that compares it to a reference sequence. There's sound science behind it. Fingerprints are yet another bit of police pseudoscience, like polygraphs and drug dogs. You simply can't lift a set of prints off a crime scene, put them in a computer and have it go "oh, it's Steve Johnson from 123 Fake Street". It just doesn't work like that.
It is well known that Steve Johnson from 123 Fake Street pleaded guilty to all charges anyway. So there goes that theory.
| You simply can't lift a set of prints off a crime scene, put them in a computer and have it go "oh, it's Steve Johnson from 123 Fake Street". It just doesn't work like that. |
As I understand it, that is exactly how AFIS works & is used. This is a case where it was used to wrongly identify a suspect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
Yes, there is interpretation of the results, but once the finger has been pointed at you the prosecution can start building a case & that is not a good place to be.
Let me rephrase it then: yes, you can physically do it, but the results you get from such an operation are no more valid than if you used a dowsing rod to try to find the culprit. Unfortunately one can be used to convince a jury that doesn't know any better and the other can't be.
There is absolutely no doubt that fingerprint technology is very successful, very reliable and therefore used globally to assist the successful prosecution of criminals. It is silly to say otherwise.
There are obviously horrendous misuses of the technology. We’ve just been pointed to one on Wikipedia.
All these spurious comparisons with dousing, sniffer dogs etc are lame nonsense designed cynically to polarise what is a sensible discussion.
There are obviously horrendous misuses of the technology. We’ve just been pointed to one on Wikipedia.
All these spurious comparisons with dousing, sniffer dogs etc are lame nonsense designed cynically to polarise what is a sensible discussion.
@helios
I wouldn't be so sure of that: Guys like Snowden and Assange are not on the run because the exposed such criminal activity relating to cartoon organisations but real ones. ie they not just running from make believe characters like the coyote chasing the roadrunner.
Also it could be quite possible that Ganado has some other value associated with himself: suppose he is the countries top genetic scientist and have work/abilities that some organisations would like to own/exploit.
Or if not framing Ganado of murdering someone he knows his employer could also frame him for stealing equipment or information or a large number of other crimes which would still ultimately be bad news for him.
| You're talking about a cartoon villain, not an actual criminal organization. If they were willing to murder to hurt Ganado then they could simply murder him. No need to go through the extra effort of copying his fingerprints and framing him for something he didn't do, which is liable to fail, to boot. |
I wouldn't be so sure of that: Guys like Snowden and Assange are not on the run because the exposed such criminal activity relating to cartoon organisations but real ones. ie they not just running from make believe characters like the coyote chasing the roadrunner.
Also it could be quite possible that Ganado has some other value associated with himself: suppose he is the countries top genetic scientist and have work/abilities that some organisations would like to own/exploit.
Or if not framing Ganado of murdering someone he knows his employer could also frame him for stealing equipment or information or a large number of other crimes which would still ultimately be bad news for him.
Pages: 12