That is essentially the problem to those of us who oppose it.
When you say "criminals" you are probably thinking of strictly people who harm others, but the state is thinking of anybody who breaks its laws. Currently many of those laws exist solely to keep certain groups in power, and there is no guarantee it won't get even worse in the future.
Human law enforcement ensures layers of decisionmakers who are at least theoretically capable of empathy, and limited manpower makes them prioritize the worst or most flagrant crimes. Automated law enforcement gives a smaller group of people horrifyingly granular levels of control over all of society.
Considering fingerprint analysis is pseudoscience and almost entirely made up (along with most other "forensic science") [1] [2] we can assume LOTS AND LOTS of innocent people are caught with "fingerprint data"
>"There is some evidence that fingerprints are unique to each person, and it is plausible that careful analysis could accurately discern whether two prints have a common source, the report says. However, claims that these analyses have zero-error rates are not plausible; uniqueness does not guarantee that two individuals' prints are always sufficiently different that they could not be confused, for example. Studies should accumulate data on how much a person's fingerprints vary from impression to impression, as well as the degree to which fingerprints vary across a population. With this kind of research, examiners could begin to attach confidence limits to conclusions about whether a print is linked to a particular person."
>Considering fingerprint analysis is pseudoscience and almost entirely made up
Quite the stretch to go from "non-zero-error rates" to "made up pseudoscience" isn't it?
It's a problem if people are being convicted on fingerprint analysis alone. But as a piece of the puzzle, when combined with other evidence, what is the issue?
and you don't come to the attention of the police by being innocent so it's safe to assume you're guilty and watch the evidence appear. And this is why the advice is to say nothing whatsoever to police. Don't help them get the falsehoods out of their case anywhere but in front of a judge in a court. And the police may not be bad people or involved in organised crime.
All this tech makes a turnkey police state right there waiting. Who is going to turn that key before we dismantle it? Think of the children.
The tech will improve. Fingerprint data from cards use to be high tech.
Also the William & Will West case was an older example of misidentifying by photography. Modern tech has improved dramatically and will get more and more precise. Why apply early 2000’s tech issues to the advancements made in the past 15-20 years?
Lie detectors are woefully unreliable, but PDs use them.
Forensic “matching” of bullets to guns is basically pseudoscience, but continues to be used in court to convict people.
Roadside drug analysis kits are less useful than dowsing rods, but get people arrested on a daily basis. People that can’t afford bail, and plead guilty just to get back to their lives, despite the fact that an actual defense attorney would have had the case tossed in the trash.
Previous experience suggests that police tech does not just “get better.” They can’t even progress past “disproven pseudoscience.” And the innocent people that have their lives messed with while waiting for the tech to catch up might not be indifferent to the process.
> Commission President Anthony Pacheco said Friday that he was highly concerned after learning police have arrested at least two innocent people because of faulty fingerprint analysis.
How about the fact that those fingerprints Haven long been stolen and likely abused by all sorts of undergeound criminals? Even federal workers fingerprints were stolen in the OPM hack.
When you say "criminals" you are probably thinking of strictly people who harm others, but the state is thinking of anybody who breaks its laws. Currently many of those laws exist solely to keep certain groups in power, and there is no guarantee it won't get even worse in the future.
Human law enforcement ensures layers of decisionmakers who are at least theoretically capable of empathy, and limited manpower makes them prioritize the worst or most flagrant crimes. Automated law enforcement gives a smaller group of people horrifyingly granular levels of control over all of society.