Hacker News Reader

Comment by robertlagrant | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

Identifying Bob when the name Charlie is given.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com