[Godel_unicode]

I would guess that request came from FBI agents thinking like criminals. One can imagine criminals using the biometric database as an early-warning system for fleeing the country, or for vetting accomplices. Wanted: safe-cracker whose prints are not in the FBI database. Must provide recent screenshot.

[jflatow]

Sure, but there are many things the FBI could be doing to be more effective. The only thing stopping them is constitutional protection of civil liberties. So I wonder what the conversation sounds like when they determine in this case, they should be exempt from the law.

[Godel_unicode]

I'm confused by this post, are you saying that you think their request in this case for an exemption during investigations needs further explanation? Or is this more a question of "why this" as opposed to other things that would, as you say, be more effective?

"Ongoing investigation" is, in my understanding, a pretty normal reason for law enforcement to not provide information.

[jflatow]

What I mean is that I wonder what the internal dialogue is over this. This is more out of curiosity than indignation, I would like to be a fly on the wall to understand how this happens.

It seems to me, no matter what the reason, this is the justification they would give, because its the only reasonable one. But the Privacy Act exists for a reason, so I wonder what prompted them to decide it was worth making this proposal, and the discussion that actually ensued with the lawyers, etc. before making it. In particular, did they weigh the costs/benefits of what they are asking for, or are they just pushing for whatever privileges they can get?