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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
Imagine if the guy hadn’t left fingerprints or didn’t have a criminal record from the 90s.
What a fuck up!
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
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.
It's certainly the simplest explanation
>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.
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
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.
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.
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!!!
Dead Comment
There are things that scare me about the future, but this is not one of them.
Being a piece of shit is habitual.
Dead Comment
It just surprised me how disconnected the crime 20 years ago was to the current situation. But maybe it really is the best solution.
Why the scare mongering?
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.
If the headline wasn't changed here later I'd say so, pretty weird ;)
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.
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.
Being a kid is not the same as being an adult
Dead Comment
Dead Comment