Attached is a discussion question and answer.

Do you believe that the government’s (local, state, federal) collection and storing of fingerprint information causes a conflict with the privacy or civil liberties of American citizens? Why, or why not?

I believe that the government’s (local, state, or federal) collection and storing of fingerprint information causes a conflict with the privacy or civil liberties of American citizens. The reason I say this is that the government has no right to know any more about us than what we have disclosed to them. Fingerprints are just like DNA, which is unique to every individual. Therefore, it is used for identification purposes. If a criminal were to leave fingerprints at a crime scene and if those fingerprints were in a database somewhere, then the criminal could be identified. But in my opinion, there is no need for fingerprints of non-criminals to be in any database. If a person is not charged with a crime and does not want to hand over their personal information (such as fingerprints) to the government, then there should be no punishment for that person. They should not be forced into giving up their privacy for something that does not concern them in any way.

The government’s collection and storing of fingerprint information can cause a privacy or civil liberties issue because it violates the right to privacy. The right to privacy, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, is implied by several amendments. Fingerprinting an individual for any reason that does not pertain to their criminal record is considered illegal and an invasion of privacy. In the case of Schmerber v. California, it was ruled that the taking of blood from someone without their consent was legal if it was done in order to prove whether or not they were guilty of a crime. However, the court made it clear that if nothing incriminating was found in the blood, then it could not be used for any other purpose. This means that once fingerprinting is done for one purpose, it cannot be used for another purpose without the consent of the subject or a warrant.

I believe this is how discrimination can arise. As you may know, fingerprinting has been around for many centuries, since the early Egyptian civilization. Many people in the US are afraid that this information could be used to discriminate against them and deny them certain employment opportunities. Another reason why I think it is a conflict is that some people have very similar fingerprints, which can result in false identification in criminal cases. Yet another reason why I believe it is a conflict with privacy and civil liberties is that there are many different types of fingerprints, and an individual may be profiled based on the type of fingerprint that they have. Fingerprinting should be used as a means of identification only if necessary, not for profiling purposes.

Fingerprinting is not a new concept; it was used in 1858 by Sir William Herschel to identify servants in India. It was not until the 1920s that police departments began using fingerprints as a means of identification. Fingerprints were first used to solve a crime in 1902 when Juan Vucetich, an Argentinean police official, identified the murderer of two children by matching his fingerprints to prints found at the scene of the crime. The ability to use fingerprints as a means of identification has been refined over the years. Today’s fingerprint technology allows law enforcement officials to match prints at a much higher rate than ever before. The FBI has collected 54 million sets of prints and is able to identify criminals in 3 minutes through its Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).

However, despite the advances in fingerprint technology and its use by law enforcement agencies worldwide, there are still many opponents who believe that this method of collecting information from an individual violates their privacy or civil liberties. Although there have not been any cases involving court challenges against fingerprinting for reasons of privacy or civil liberties, several cases have questioned its reliability as a means of identification.

References.

Lynch, J. (2020). Face off: Law enforcement use of face recognition technology. Available at SSRN 3909038.

Macmanus, S. A., Caruson, K., & McPhee, B. D. (2013). Cybersecurity at the local government level: Balancing demands for transparency and privacy rights. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(4), 451-470.

Moore, A. D. (2011). Privacy, security, and government surveillance: Wikileaks and the new accountability. Public Affairs Quarterly, 25(2), 141-156.

Here is a classmate’s response: Taneya,

I feel like many of your arguments stem from paranoia. While privacy is not spelled out in the Constitution, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is specificly included. Privacy is a reasonable expectation, however, is that privacy more important than protecting the lives of people who could be attacked or assaulted? Personally, I don’t fear the idea of being fingerprinted, because I have nothing to hide.

Do you have an example of false identification because of fingerprint similarity? This feels obscure.

Please provide a response to this classmates’ response.