Missing girl found using fingerprints on ransom note | Hacker News Reader

Missing girl found using fingerprints on ransom note

bbc.com

52 pointsvinni299 comments

Glad she was found but wow what a near-miss. State troopers are rah rah celebratory while glossing over the fact they had troopers stationed at the house where the abductor dropped the ransom note, but they had recently left their post at the house to respond to a separate call.

Imagine if the guy hadn’t left fingerprints or didn’t have a criminal record from the 90s.

What a fuck up!

Another near miss by Louisiana State Police because they didn't have enough evidence at first to keep him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLUoVI4C4gA

Meh, nothing wrong with officers missing something they couldn't see due to respecting people's legal rights. Wild video! The cop did really well there.

I don’t think this is the full story. I’m pretty sure this is a case of parallel construction.

You believe that based on what evidence?

If the fingerprint was crucial for the catching of the criminal, why did the police publish this fact? Other perpetrators can learn from such mistakes and made it harder to catch them next time.

Do you think there's still anyone alive that doesn't know about fingerprints?

Agreed, this sounds like parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

You suggest this but there is no evidence of that here

I am moderately skeptical of the story that it was the fingerprint alone which led them to the kidnapper, and I am curious for more details. I have a vague suspicion the police had a pretty good idea of who they were looking for already, and while the fingerprint confirmed it, eventually they would have picked the same guy up. The existence of the fingerprint allows them to keep other sources and methods discreet.

That being said I'm not implying that the cops did anything illegal or even untoward. And further if this goes to trial the defense is certainly entitled to the full story, but it seems likely this guy will plead guilty and we might not know for years why the cops came to look at this guy.

That's theoretically possible, but fingerprints are very plausible cause for IDing the suspect.

It's certainly the simplest explanation

Is it weird that my first thought was about ransomware's ransom note and I wondered what kind of fingerprint was used (gpg key? ssh?). I had to open the article to realise how wrong I was.

>Police were able to identify him, as the print was on their database linked to a drink-driving incident from 1999.

Ok, this is scary. So fingerprints collected 24 years ago for completely unrelated (and dubious - why collect fingerprints for drunk driving) reasons basically live forever in the gov databases. I'm not sure I welcome this brave new world.

Perhaps it's because I'm a parent, but I couldn't disagree more. Drunk driving is antisocial and dangerous behavior. In this case, the presumption that someone engaging in it is more likely to commit crime down the road has proven completely true.

There are things that scare me about the future, but this is not one of them.

For some reason, you seem to be assuming that the government only collects biometrics for "antisocial and dangerous behavior" and is only using them to protect others.

One as a citizen has visibility - or can have visibility- into the government's working, you DO vote, right?

Private citizens and companies, not so much.

No, I'm reacting to a complaint about a specific event. If there's a complaint to be raised about data collection for something innocuous, raise that instead. In this particular instance, I'm glad this horrible person was tagged like an animal and collected, saving a young girl's life.

A 9 year old girl was just rescued from possible death or horrible abuse - and you are not in favor of the technology that allowed that?

Yes, it is good that they found the child, by any mean’s necessary.

Yes, it is concerning that, the moment you’re in police custody, for any reason, your biometrics are stored indefinitely. Both can be true.

We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes. There are happy mediums in between, and the above commenter thinks a decades-long storing of your fingerprint sounds concerning.

IMO it seems reasonable that unless you’re convicted within, say, 1 year, your fingerprints are deleted.

FWIW if you’re convicted of a DUI I have no problem with your prints being stored indefinitely. DUIs are treated as far, far more minor offenses than they really are.

It seems totally pointless to keep them for a DUI. You have a criminal record if you have one. What do the prints help with?

Identifying Bob when the name Charlie is given.

Just off the top of my head: The prints might help identify you in case you adbuct a little kid

Do I understand correctly that you are for storing the biometrics of every adult in case they abduct a little kid?

I'm okay with storing the fingerprints and photos of every adult, period. These very loosely tie people to places and times, and perhaps we would treat them more as the very loose link if we understood better how dragnet they are.

I'm definitely okay with keeping them on file for every convicted criminal, though I will continue to argue for certain kinds of convictions to be thrown out.

The answer depends if you have a little kid that will be abducted or not. If they are, you'll definitely wish they could be found quickly.

> if you have a little kid that will be abducted or not

Presumably you're not going to have one who will be.

But that aside - this is silly. Why DUI? Why not just all adults, if you want to go police state on people?

If you have a need, then why would you not want a police state? Losing a child is a horrible thing, a horrible feeling to those that experience it.

Heck, most progressive are just a mugging away from becoming neocons. That’s just how life is.

I'm not so sure. The country in which I live has survived a police state, but it has left deep scars. I, for one, am willing not willing to pay the price of living in a police state even assuming that it might decrease crime.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that my country had much higher rate of murder/theft/kidnapping while it was a police state.

If you're taken into jail, whether you're charged with anything or not and whether you're convicted of anything or not, they keep your fingerprints.

Right, which is why I just specified what I think would be a reasonable change.

>We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes.

No, we really couldn't. That's an authoritarian fantasy. I don't think people really grasp the volume of crime that's occurring every single day. There aren't enough prisons/police/etc to enforce even a fraction of the laws on the books.

> We could bring crime to near-zero if we give the government full, unlimited access to all of our communications, devices, and our homes.

Will not scale. They had full, unlimited access to all the communications, devices, home and working place of one citizen for four whole years, and the list of criminal charges is higher than the Trump tower

Using that logic you could justify the implementation of any technology that could be used later on by malicious actors. "But think of the children!"

The problem is that use of this databases is not restricted only for nonevil uses.

That's not a problem caused by the existence of the database, but by the presence of people abusing it. Prosecute those people instead of throwing out a legitimately useful tool.

You're assuming that your country is going to remain a democracy.

The 20th century has a bunch of examples of countries that were democracies, until they weren't. That's probably the main reason for which the EU is pro-privacy. Because Europe has seen what can happen when data falls into the wrong hands.

Not saying I disagree with your sentiment -- I agree with it in this case -- but "because of the kids" is never a good basis for supporting a position.

That’s the same argument used for government backdoors in phones. Yes, it’s good that these scenarios are stopped, but there’s a longer term outlook that we should take too.

This is a very poor argument. Immediately sentencing every criminal to death would also save at least one 9 year old girl.

The government having unfettered access to our personal devices and banning encryption would have also allowed her to be saved. That doesn't make it a desirable capability.

It's called having principles and it's hard to understand if you're unfamiliar with the concept.

Premise 1 = good. Premise 2 = bad.

Both can be true, good & bad, simultaneously.

Good that a child was rescued.

Bad that bio-metrics are stored indefinitely without knowledge or consent of those whose bio-metrics were essentially stolen and waiting to be leaked or used for nefarious purposes.

No citizens voted for this indefinite capture. No citizens voted on length of storage, type of storage, sharing options, or security of said indefinite captures.

This is bad. ALL BAD.

______

The ends NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!!

I disagree. Drunk driving is treated like a joke, some harmless "Oops", but it's not.

Also it's a personality fair: someone who is ok with driving drunk is a candidate for worse things. I for one think it's a good thing to keep their biometrics on hand for _WHEN_ that happens.

And if people are found to be abusing this information, prosecute them for it.

I didn’t mention any specific charge, or crime, purposely.

The indefinite biometric capture is the topic.

Indefinitely retained biometric capture is inherently bad; period.

There is no scenario where governments can be trusted with that data, especially if it never expires is never deleted and can become ammunition for opposing views.

I agree, I don't think a menace such as a drunk driver should have their fingerprints removed from a database. When you drive drunk on public roads, endangering countless lives, you forfeit a bit of your privacy.

I'm really happy the girl was rescued! This story could end in a horrible way.

But no, I'm not in favor of the technology that allowed that. I think there are a lot of tradeoffs to giving the state powerful tracking capabilities, and the same power can be used for evil instead.

As another example: I work in cybersecurity for a governmental institution. A LOT of crimes could be solved if my organisation could MITM any citizen and get access to their plaintext traffic, probably also crimes involving 9 year old girls (given the sheer scale of cybercrime on national level). But I really don't want to have that power.

Matrix

I'd love to see you argue the theoretical perils of the government keeping fingerprint records in front of the family of the rescued 9 year old.

This is why we don't restrict the pool of people who design justice systems to "those who've just had their 9-year-old taken".

Not sure why you'd bring up such a blatantly obvious point.

All I'm saying it would be hilarious to see a terminally paranoid person argue why they don't want the government to keep fingerprint records of criminals in front of a family of people whose lives were just permanently altered for the better by the same records.

I can't even think of very strong arguments against such records, which makes the above even more hilarious. But I get the opposition, it's scary when the government has permanent records of people.

> Not sure why you'd bring up such a blatantly obvious point.

Because it wasn't clear that it was obvious, from your previous comment.

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing for. Do you not want fingerprints taken when people are arrested? Or maybe you don't think DUI should be an arrestable offense? Or you think maybe there should be a time limit on how long the government can retain bio info, perhaps by severity of offense?

The last one. But I think I overreacted a bit. Your thoughtful response made me realise that - thanks.

It just surprised me how disconnected the crime 20 years ago was to the current situation. But maybe it really is the best solution.

In some countries, firgerprints are collect as soon as you get some governmental ID. And they live forever in databases. The actual go-to is to collect DNA samples from suspects (you don't need to be convicted).

That's kind of screwy, honestly. At least fingerprints can be worn off and erased.

They always come back the same as before though. Really only useful if you proactively remove them before committing a crime, and don't get printed before they return.

Or just wear gloves.

You could always burn them off.

Do you mean always as in it's always a possibility, or that they could be always (regularly) burned off? I think they still come back anyway, even if you have scars overlaid on parts of them.

Can they come back if they have just been burned? There would be scar tissue overlaying them surely?

The fingerprint was collected and stored in 1999. I don't think this is "new"

> Is it weird that my first thought was about ransomware's ransom note and I wondered what kind of fingerprint was used (gpg key? ssh?).

If the headline wasn't changed here later I'd say so, pretty weird ;)

Many countries read your fingerprints when you enter the border. I wouldn't be surprised if the likelihood of showing up in databases of foreign governments is even higher than your local one.

why collect fingerprints for drunk driving

Being a piece of shit is habitual.

It's not like his prints were found on the trail - they were on an actual ransom note.

Some of the newest neighbors to HN believe it's bad that this drunk drivers finger prints that were indefinitely stored, help find a little girl who was opportunistically kidnapped.

> this brave new world.

At-scale use of fingerprints by law enforcement is old - probably much older than the word "database":

"The French scientist Paul-Jean Coulier developed a method to transfer latent fingerprints on surfaces to paper using iodine fuming. It allowed the London Scotland Yard to start fingerprinting individuals and identify criminals using fingerprints in 1901. Soon after, American police departments adopted the same method and fingerprint identification became a standard practice in the United States.[80] The Scheffer case of 1902 is the first case of the identification, arrest, and conviction of a murderer based upon fingerprint evidence..."

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#20th_century

Why "scary"? Why is this "unrelated" if it's a police work database? It's a known statistic that many are both repeat offenders and opportunistic, why should markers --like fingerprints-- be actively expunged?

Why the scare mongering?

I'm not scaremongering (that assumes intent), just concerned.

At this point why not just at least be upfront with it and collect everyone's fingerprint when they turn 18? It would make more sense IMO.

I live in EU. A state agency got my fingerprints when I applied for my passport. I expect that my fingerprints are now copied in various databases all over the world.

Spain? Have you ever done a freedom of information request or similar to find out where your data may have spread? (I'd certainly be interested, were it me.) The only biometric data attached to my passport is a black and white image of my face, which was taken on a mobile phone by a coworker.

No, it's not Spain. Freedom of information is a joke here. Ask what happens to fingerprints and the reply would be that the grass is green, 6 months later.

You can wear them off if you really care. Use rock climbing as an excuse.

I welcome the world where evidence solves crimes and criminals are tracked so we can later catch them.

Why is it dubious? The person committed a crime and was detained. It's a far cry from Brave New World.

To some people, all things everywhere at all times are bad.

Contrary to what gripping television shows depict, most criminals aren't that intelligent.

That said, it's pretty dangerous to let your kid go out alone in a state park - not just because of stranger danger, but they could simply get badly hurt in an area not frequented by many people.

> That said, it's pretty dangerous to let your kid go out alone in a state park

This just isn't backed up by the numbers. A 9 year old girl riding a bike on a paved path at a camping site is hardly ever kidnapped or "badly hurt". Telling parents it's "pretty dangerous" to let them do this is not helping.

My daughter will be nine next month. My kids have freedom and do a lot of stuff, but I don't let my kids out of my sight. I'm benign about it so they don't notice. People say I'm a helicopter parent. Those people can piss right off.

how the heck are your kids going to manage in later life?

By being adults like the rest of us?

Being a kid is not the same as being an adult

if you have a big daddy controlling your life for 18 years or so, then i suspect you will not be "adults like the rest of us".

I don't think anyone equated being a kid to being an adult. Your experiences as a child shape the adult you might become. If you are used to a parental safety net always catching you or preventing you from harm, what will happen when the net is removed?

They don't magically turn into adults the day they turn 18, you need to let them learn how to become one in small steps.

They learn in part by trying things out and messing up, and they won't do that if they're constantly being watched.

Funny thing is, last week I read an article about people hiriing "concierge service" for their children once they're in college, because their children can't function without handholding. I couldn't find the article I read but this is a similar one:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinion-the-ultimate-...

This is the safest era we've ever been in. Stifling independence over incredibly rare hypothetical situations is not the way.

Too many cars, teenagers driving and on the cellphone. I'm not afraid from violence but from cars.

how does hovering over your child prevent either of you being hit when a car mounts the pavement?

Well, in many suburbs there is no pavement (in Canada at least). Children play and too many times they just run into the street or just walking and without thinking move 1 meter sideways. Also some playgrounds are very height like 2-3 meters and children fall from it (like flat with back and head on the sand). Anyways, maybe I need a therapy to calm me down.

Have you seen how oblivious young kids are around cars? It’s not about a runaway car driving down the sidewalk.

Nine is widely considered too young to stay home alone, let alone wander the world alone.

This is a modern invention. Kids of that age routinely explored the world on their own in the before time. Then social media happened, and everyone thinks that everyone else is a risk. Everyone thinks they're doing good when they call the cops upon seeing a child by themselves.

I went to kindergarten alone every day at age 6. Almost everybody on my street did that. It was a 1 km walk. At age 7 I walked every day alone to school 2 km away and I remember it took exactly 25 minutes.

I walked to school by myself starting at age 6. Everybody I knew did. Is the world more dangerous now than it was in the 1960s?

Does your daughter have to piss off too?

It’s tough. Presumably, your parents or grandparents didn’t have to raise their kids in an environment where they were constantly barraged with horrific news stories such as these.

You likely grew up in a period of more danger than your kid. Did you parents behave as you do now? Did you turn out okay?

I agree with your sentiment, but your statement is pure survivor bias.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com