From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 20:05:56 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960515192152.10635K-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605152326.A895-0100000@netcom10>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 15 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > First off, if you were born in the US, they have your feet and/or hand 
> > > > prints on record.
> > > 
> > > Incorrect.
> > > Several states do not bother to print infants at birth.
> > > Several hospitals do not bother to follow state guidelines in those states
> > > which do so require.
> > 
> > Which ones specifically?
> 
> Illinois doesn't much care.  Michigan had no requirement at all, some
> hospitals did, some didn't bother to print infants at birth.  This was
> usually to avoid baby switching and such and records were dumped later on.
> Wisc. never much seemed to care until about 5 years ago when someone tried
> to pass a law.  I don't think it ever passed, but I'm not sure.  There is
> no standard consensus on this.
> 
> In Illinois it was estimated last year that 9% of births were outside of
> hospitals.

Thank you for the information. I was unware of this.

> 
> Thousands if not millions of people have no prints on record.  How large
> precisely do you think the FBI's national records are?  FBI + Local law
> enforcement?  FBI + Local + administrative?

Ofcourse this will be the case until the Beltway decides for our benefit 
and protection that we must all be tagged like the family pet. These are 
the same folks who are currently operating under the premise of "give us 
your guns, then we'll lock up the criminals".

Even if they decide to play the "stamp the hand" game, the logistics of 
creating and coordinating the data flow of such a system are dubious at 
best. The IRS still hasn't figured out how to put together a working 
computer model (and I would hazard to guess they own the largest of the 
large - outside of Langley).

> 
> I'd be very surprised to find out it was larger than 100 million, or ~1/3
> of the U.S. population (any number of which might be records of dead
> people).

The government and local agencies do not have to have everyone's prints 
(of any kind) directly on file. In order to play the game, they must 
exist in some form, and the people responsible for managing such activities 
should be educated enough to know where to look. It devolves quickly to a 
data warehousing problem that becomes tedious to solve, but not impossible.

> 
> > > It is one of the great advantages of the United States that no
> > > standardized procedure for person identification exists.  Seals and
> > > certificates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Cross the border to
> > > a state and a hospital birth annoucement is enough for a drivers license,
> > > cross again and 4 pieces and a note from mom isn't enough.
> > > 
> > > Be careful with disinformation please.
> > > 
> > 
> > My point is not about the variance of seals and certificates (I have at 
> > least 6 different ones prove it from 4 different states). That is a 
> > given. It is that prints have been a generally accepted practice for some 
> > time now. IF you want to make the case and go back to the early days 
> > (pre-WWII), then people like attila and a few others don't have them - 
> > and I'll concede the point on that basis.
> 
> Again, the point is that states can't decide if they want the task of
> printing and sorting and collecting and storing such records.  It's not
> cheap.  Even if it were, some states just don't care.
> 
> If you're trying to tell me that few if any unsolved cases involving
> "unmatched" prints were committed by people younger than 55-60, I think
> you might reconsider.  That's what your "everyone since WWII" statement
> implies.  If that is so, why does the FBI maintain thousands of active
> "waiting for print-person link" records for unsolved cases?

I'm not interested in unsolved cases (crimes) that involve unmatched 
prints. It really is irrelevant to the discussion. There are too many other 
mitigating factors that influence the course of such an investigation. 

Again, I will state, it's a data warehousing problem to locate such 
information (presuming it exists). You have to know where to look before 
chasing down the most likely candidate.

> 
> Either 1. - Not everyone born is printed or 2. - Hospitals who print don't
> bother to submit to state or federal agencies because they (a) are not
> required to (b) don't much care.
> 
> The answer is actually (3) all of the above.

Agreed.

> 
> > The information I received has come from inquiries to folks I know within 
> > the AMA, several different hospital adminstration staff in various states 
> > - whose job it is to handle such affairs, and few other people who make 
> > it their business to know such trivia. IF the information is in error, 
> > I'll gladly accept correct input. Next time, don't be so quick to accuse 
> > without inquirying to context. I'm not J.Bell.
> 
> Again, even what the AMA says has little to do with state and individual
> hospital practice.  Of the printing that goes on, most infant
> identification is done for internal hospital records, and most involves
> ONLY foot prints.
> 

Agreed, however, I didn't think I represented a hands only premise. 

...Paul