Draconian identification powers for police sneak into New Zealand law
Lance Wiggs reads stuff very carefully, and noticed an NZPA story in the NZ Herald, about criminals giving fake names to avoid facing the music when apprehended. The story appears to have originated at the Sunday Star Times, and been regurgitated as-is by the NZPA and the NZ Herald. At first reading, it seems reasonable enough: it won't be as easy as before to hide behind others if you're caught by the police. From now on, police will be able to identify anyone, through fingerprinting, even if they're not arrested for a crime.
In other words, the law change is there to protect the innocent. It should make it harder to impersonate someone else, and let that person take the rap for your dirty deeds.
As Lance pointed out on Twitter though, being fingerprinted for minor offences without being arrested isn't exactly peanuts. Next time you're caught going too fast, you might be fingerprinted. In fact, any time a cop looks at you askance, you could have your prints taken.
What will happen to the prints? Presumably, they'll be digitised and entered into a database somewhere or otherwise there wouldn't be any point in taking them. What will the database be used for? Did we ask our MPs to do this?
Was it even necessary to introduce such a law change? No, not according to the article. The people impersonating others have all been caught and been punished. Auckland University law professor Scott Optican says it's a "pretty self-defeating position" to give out false names because you're very likely to be caught and it's not worth the risk.
Police itself don't seem to think the problem is out of control, and the Justice Department doesn't even record instances of how many people were convicted using false identities.
So why do it then? Perhaps the real reason isn't so much to protect the innocent as the article suggests, but to establish a nationwide fingerprint database on the sly instead. That seems to be the real story.
Tag(s):
Other related posts:
PublicACTA posts the Wellington Declaration. Sign it if you value your rights
European Parliament throws spanner in secret ACTA works
Guest blogger: Commodore Ratu Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama, MSD, OStJ
Comment by Xile, on 29-DEC-2008 10:13
If you look at the Policing Act, which is the statute which allows police to fingerprint people, you will see that before that can be done the person must be in lawful custody - which means having been arrested or detained under an enactment. Being stopped for speeding, belive it or not, does not qualify.
Comment by Dratsab, on 29-DEC-2008 11:06
@xile - wrong. Section 32(5) of the Policing Act (which also covers Section 33) outlines quite clearly what identifying particulars are. Section 33 quite clearly states that police can take identifying particulars of persons they have "good cause to suspect" of having committed an offence.
As far as cases which end up in court go, the issue is probably not a huge one. However, I would imagine that those cases which do end up in court (with the real perpertrator) have taken well in excess of a year to get there and have caused all sorts of problems for the victims.
I would also imagine there are thousands of infringement notices issued every year which go unpaid due to the giving of false details. With no real resource to chase these tickets up, most of these infringement notices would simply end up being cancelled.
Now, if you are being issued an infringement notice, the constable issuing obviously has "reasonable cause to suspect" you have committed an offence. Therefore, if you fail to produce ID (which has been an offence for a number of years) he/she will now have the right to obtain other "identifying particulars" from you - ie fingerprints.
What form this fingerprinting will take I don't know, but it might be something as simple as having an impression of your thumbprint placed on the back of the officers copy of the infringement notice. I would regard it as unlikely that this would be digitised and stored.
It would, however, be digitised and compared against stored information if the details given should turn out to be false. From there, if the person could be tracked down, they would likely be arrested and a full set of fingerprints taken anyway.
As for "sneaking" into NZ law - get real. The Police Act took over 2 years to write and was widely consulted with a number of interested parties as well as there being a couple of rounds of public submissions.
The only sneaky thing about the Police Act was the last minute decision by Labour (on the behest of NZ First) to include a section which discriminates against members of police by prohibiting them from standing for election in local councils.
And no, a cop can't "look at you askance" and take your prints. There has to be "resonable cause to suspect" - remember... As for the "people who give false details are likely to get caught" quote. That can go in the bin as well.
People who give false details will possibly be caught. Just like people who commit burglaries will possibly be caught, or people who break into vehicles will possibly be caught. What are those stats for those? - from memory about 1 in 4 for burglaries and (extremely) significantly lower for vehicle thefts.
Just because you didn't know about something until it was enacted does not make it sneaky. Just because you don't fully understand it doesn't make it draconian.
A nationwide fingerprint database on the sly - ROTFLMAO. That's seriously paranoid!
Comment by Dratsab, on 29-DEC-2008 11:20
Apologies for the spelling mistakes in my previous post and the act is also known as the Policing Act 2008.
Further to my previous, I should have looked a little further into this. Section 34 of the Policing Act 2008 refers to the storage of fingerprints (or other such identifying particulars) obtained under sections 32 or 33.
Essentially they must be destroyed as soon as practicable if a decision is made not to proceed with charges against the person, or unless:
- a conviction is gained
- a Section 106 (Sentencing Act 2002) discharge is granted
- An alternative resolution is imposed
Read all about it at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0072/latest/DLM1351207.html
Comment by Dratsab, on 29-DEC-2008 12:12
Yes there is a national fingerprint database and I'm glad you know how many prints are in there
However, it's hardly been built on the sly, and the new legislation doesn't allow for this either.
I'm glad you don't agree with all my comments, it would be a boring world if everyone agreed all the time, but I stand by them all.
Keep the blogs coming - they're always interesting!!
Comment by barf, on 29-DEC-2008 20:39
surely "identifying particulars" is purposefully ambiguous enough to encompass DNA also, we are behind the rest of the world - if you look at it that way - for police to posess powers to take urine or blood samples in the arrest and detention process.
I don't think fingerprints are what would be at the front of ones mind when passing a law like this, in 2008.
Comment by barf, on 29-DEC-2008 20:48
I notice "DNA", "biometric information" and "identifying particulars" are excluded from being destroyed along with fingerprints, palm-prints, or footprints under section 32 and section 33.
Comment by Nightwyrm, on 30-DEC-2008 10:12
Sounds to me like they're catching up with other countries. The US have the NCIC and IAFIS systems (plus others),and there's nothing sinister about those (ignoring the tinfoil hat squad).
Theirs goes further of course. For example, certain employers have the right to take new employee's fingerprints and submit them to the central databases (e.g. military, councils, banks, etc.). This is primarily a preventative measure, but if it picks up outstanding warrants on people, all the better.
I don't mind if a central identification database exists, as longs as it's not abused. I personally have no privacy concerns around this, and still support the idea of a national id card.
Comment by bigal_nz, on 30-DEC-2008 20:26
Dratsab,
Good call. Agree with everything you said.
Juha: Getting it in on the sly???So the govt. can do what devious thing with you fingerprints??? Is there a national conspiracy here to get the whole countrys fingerprints for some unknown motive???? Whats the problem with the cops having your fingerprints? You got nothing to worry about unless you do something wrong. I couldnt care less if the cops had my prints because dont do anything wrong.
It always makes me laugh how people ask for tougher sentences, and want the cops to catch the murders and rapists etc etc etc, but as soon as anyone tries to help with legislation all the privacy whiners come out.
Bottom line: dont expect the cops to catch anyone if you tie there hands behind there backs and blindfold them.
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments.
If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and shown in this blog post.
Comment by Andrew, on 28-DEC-2008 15:57
A simple "You must produce a vaild form of ID at court or when being pulled up" would have fixed this, instead of taking everyone's finger prints. Whats stops me saying I'm Joe Bloggs here are my finger prints, then go break into someones house and the find my finger prints but the database says joe bloggs did it?