Question: Everyone in Canada should be fingerprinted and photographed to make law enforcement easier. Please provide an argument for and an argument against.
For:
Everyone in Canada should be photographed and fingerprinted because it would make it easier to catch criminals and over all make a law enforcement officer’s job less stressful. The reason for this would be that officers can identify who committed a crime by simply scanning a bank robber’s face from a surveillance camera then matching the photograph they took of him even 20 years ago (all because technology is moving so fast). This would not be an invasion of privacy because the police officers would not be using the face recognition from the photograph or fingerprints as a device to search through people’s personal lives, it would be used to identify criminals and would also help prevent crime from occurring. I.e. if people knew the government had a face recognizer and can instantly match fingerprints, many people would decide to rather live a crime free life and earn an honest way of living because they know that if the police are called to the crime, they can scan the fingerprints and find a match. The data base that holds this information would also help direct law enforcement to where the suspect lives, works, goes every week, the car he drive etc. which would help in quickly apprehending the culprit and bringing him to justice. An example of how useful fingerprinting technology is was when Jerry Watson was convicted of committing murder 30 years earlier. At the time (1978), the latent fingerprint from the crime scene could not give the police any leads. Technology kept advancing, which allowed the police force identify and test the fingerprint and after a few days, they identified the culprit to be Jerry Watson. Seeing that the idea of everyone being fingerprinted and photographed would solve and prevent crime in Canada, it would be a good idea to implement it into society.
Against:
Everyone in Canada should not be photographed or fingerprinted because it infringes on the Charter Rights all Canadian citizen are entitled to. Section 7 of the Charter states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security” but not everyone might feel that a database about them is upholding that right. People would feel like they are being monitored and watched even if they have done nothing wrong. Fingerprinting or photographing everyone (or even people accused of a crime) could lead people to believe that they themselves are considered criminals and that the government needs tabs on them to make sure no one commits a crime even if they never had the intention of committing the crime.
It has been a controversial topic for many years since s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enabled when the Charter came into effect in 1982. When or if a police officer were to come up to you under suspicion that you have something illegal or detrimental in your backpack they are not allowed to search or seize anything without a warrant. There are pros and cons to this topic because under section 7 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security so in a negative light if citizens feel unsafe because a person is suspicious and putting others in danger the police are not allowed to interfere without a warrant to make sure that evidence does not become void in a court case, if it arises to that. In a positive light if someone calls 911 and they are in trouble and the police are able to get a warrant on time to help then it would save lives and make society a more secure environment. There has been various cases where spatial privacy has been abused different ways: telephone, Internet, and etc. At this point many may agree that the law itself (Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) may need to be updated in terms of specifying when it’s needed for a warrant and when it’s not as technology has also been updated since the Constitution was made in 1982. Society’s view may change after cases like R v. Tse, as police can yet invade ones privacy constitutionally or not it may also
DNA evidence should not be colvcslected from suspects as a matter of routine. To do so will cause unnecessary privacy intrusion; in the vast majority of criminal cases DNA evidence will contribute nothing to the investigation. Thus, it would not be appropriate for Parliament to give blanket authority to collect DNA samples from all persons suspected of indictable offences. DNA should also not be collected from a suspect if investigators have no DNA evidence with which to compare the suspect's sample. Nor would a DNA sample be necessary if the suspect admitted guilt.
In the article “Point: Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement is Unjust”, Adele Cassola determines that racial profiling is an extensive problem in policing across Canada. She identifies that racial profiling is based on stereotypes of race, ethnicity, and cultural background with African-Canadians, Arab-Canadians, and Aboriginal Canadians being targeted most frequently. Racial profiling is not unique to law enforcement and immigration, Cassola asserts, “it is a wide spread problem within other institutions and establishments as well” (2009). She discovered a survey that showed Toronto's African-Canadian secondary school students were stopped four times more frequently and searched six times more frequently than their non-black classmates. In an article from the Toronto Star newspaper in 2002, Cassola notes that African-Canadians were subject...
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
The government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government surveillance is a rising global controversy; and, although minimal coverage could possibly result in safer communities, too much surveillance will result in the violation of citizen’s privacy.
Tator, H., & Henry, F. (2006). Racial profiling in Canada: Challenging the myth of 'a few bad apples'. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.
According to BLeonard, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.(“Would the use of full-body scanners at airports be respectful of individual rights”1) “Getting searched is better than the alternative especially for people who refuse the search.”(541Inferno 1) When someone refuses to get searched all that does is draws more attention to them as being a suspect and possibly having something. “What if someone refused to be searched or scanned and they let them on and then BAM they hijacked.”(Are body-scanners respectful of individual rights at airports 2) Even though some people it is very time consuming to go through all of those body scanners and pat-downs, it is actually worth using that time to ensure the outcome. “You cannot put a price on ones life, so to simply spend a couple of privacy rules here [to think] and [you’ll see] there [life] is worth much more than anything else.”(2) As long as you do exactly what the security says you will not take any more time than anyone else that is waiting in line with you. Once you get past security once you will not have to worry about waiting in line anymore. According to NineLester, “Those who want to use the services of airports should realize that the safety of everyone is a to...
Maybe it was your lucky day at the airport; and you were selected for a body scan. It is just to detect if you are carrying anything illegal into the airport—right. However, according to Kurt Nimmo, the scanners are also collecting and storing images for law enforcement. The body scanner can store not only the body but also facial and iris. Nimmo reports about how the government is starting a $1 billion effort to gather the largest biometric data base (Nimmo, 2010). The government has been collecting biometrics in efforts to identify criminals and terrorist. According to Ellen Nakashima, employers that have sent in fingerprints of employees to scan for criminal background checks can even use the digital system. It can then keep a watch out and report any minor altercations with the law (Nakashima, 2007, par. 2). It is scary to think that there can be false positives in facial recognition. However, for protection of the greater good, I am sure it must report a suspect of a potential crime. This then puts a
Before any argument can be made against racial profiling, it is important to understand what racial profiling is. The American Civil Liberties Union, defines racial profiling as "the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin"(Racial Profiling: Definition). Using this definition we can determine that racial profiling excludes any evidence of wrong-doing and relies solely on the characteristics listed above. We can also see that racial profiling is different from criminal profiling, which uses evidence of wrong-doing and facts which can include information obtained from outside sources and evidence gathered from investigation. Based on these definitions, I will show that racial profiling is unfair and ineffective because it relies on stereotyping, encourages discrimination, and in many cases can be circumvented.
The past decade has seen a proliferation of law enforcement security cameras in public areas, with central London having more cameras than any other city. In cities like New York, Los Angeles, and central London, cameras can be found at almost every intersection. Terrorist attacks have been a major basis for this significant increase in law enforcement security cameras; however, privacy advocates, along with many of the public, feel that it’s an invasion of privacy. People are concerned that all this video surveillance, which is continuously expanding, has created a “Big Brother” society, where people are constantly watched. This creates paranoia and unease for people that just want to go about living there private lives, without feeling that their every move is being watched. The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: does the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative sides to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras; nevertheless, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned.
In conclusion I would say that though there are pros and cons with criminal profiling it is a time sensitive method of solving crimes that may need a closer. As a whole I am a one who thinks that if there was no criminal profiling there would not be bases on what the passion was for the crime or what type of individual would commit the crime. I can see how a bias opinion can affect the results regarding the validity of this method or the liability but there is a great benefit as it holds at least a starting point to solve a crime and take a criminal off the streets eventually before they may strike again either now or later in life.
Time and time again technology has transformed faster than we can control it. Facial recognition is being used gradually by social media, advertisers, stores and security companies. With no federal laws in place regulating the usage of facial recognition these companies are able to identify people without their consent. Because of this it is extremely difficult if possible to remain anonymous in public. We need a federal law, like the BIPA in Illinois and the laws written by Brian McCall, which will limit the usage of facial recognition to those who specifically opt in and give their consent.
The question is should the United States of America require all of its citizens to submit DNA fingerprinting samples. Some citizens will say it is a good idea because it will make it easy to identify persons of interest. For example, the US Department of Defense maintains a database of over one million DNA samples for use in identifying the remains of armed forces members. (Johnson, 2004). Ethically DNA database usage could borderline invasion of privacy; examples of governments that tried to enforce such strict censuses on their citizens plague history and besmirch the concept of a DNA database at its core. Experts in the field of law argue over the use of genetic information as a means of surveillance with claims that DNA databases violate
Biometric technology is used for the ways humans can be identified by unique aspects of their bodies, such as fingerprints, body odor, our voices and many more. If one was to think about privacy rights, he/she would be concerned about the widespread adoption of these systems, since such systems could easily be used to develop a record of known rebellious people and/or dangerous criminals, to be used for social control purposes. Although that may seem pretty good and a positive thing for the society, one should take into account of the defects and errors of technology. Of the many biometrics technologies that are being developed and are already developed, facial recognition is one of the most threatening because it can be deployed secretly; one may not know whether or when they can be caught in a surveillance camera for such facial recognition biometrics. Additionally, tests have found that the miscalculations for facial biometrics technologies are very high. As a result, according to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, innocent people can be erroneously identified as dangerous criminals and actual dangerous criminals and/or suspected terrorists can fail to be detected overall, allowing for a huge injustice and unfairness. Privacy rights concerned with biometrics have sparked a concern and should be dealt with; otherwise, this is just one of the
Should parents voluntarily create detailed identification records(including fingerprints) on their children in anticipation of possiblerunaway problems or abductions? (1) Yes. You can never tell when terriblethings will happen to a child, so its best to be prepared. (2)