The New Zealand Police Association rejects the findings of the IPCA and Privacy Commissioner inquiry into Police conduct when photographing members of the public.
Police Association president Chris Cahill says the report is out of step with what police officers need to do every day to protect New Zealanders from becoming victims of crime.
“The report appears to be based on anecdotes and a few poor examples of practice. It should be based on evidence and an understanding of how most police officers actually operate,” Mr Cahill says.
“Most importantly, the report’s key findings represent a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes biometric data. As such, the report is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn immediately.”
Mr Cahill says the assertion that a photograph of a person constitutes biometric data is incorrect and even the Privacy Commissioner’s own explanation of biometrics confirms this.
“A photograph is not personal information and therefore police taking and storing photographic images does not fall under the Privacy Act. This renders most of the report worthless.
“Further, the assertion by the IPCA that Police cannot take voluntary fingerprints from youths is ridiculous and if permitted to stand would deny justice to hundreds, if not thousands, of victims of crime” Mr Cahill says.
The Police Association is aware of large numbers of positive fingerprint hits that identify offenders for burglaries, stolen vehicles, thefts and potentially other more serious crimes that are not being acted on because of the erroneous view of the IPCA.
Mr Cahill calls on the Police Commissioner to direct staff to act now based on these positive fingerprints and leave it to the offenders identified to challenge the legality of this evidence in court, as is their right, and the correct process to follow.
“New Zealanders are extremely concerned about the wave of crime across Aotearoa, much of it committed by youth offenders. Correspondingly, police officers find it repugnant to not act on evidence that positively identifies offenders.
“This is also failing youths involved in crime because when Police do not act early on the evidence they have, many of these young people will continue to commit crimes. However, if Police intervene and stop them, they become eligible for wrap-around support that could divert them away from further, often more serious, offending.
“If this report is not immediately withdrawn, I believe the Police commissioner should choose to ignore it so staff can act fair and reasonably to deliver the level of service Kiwis expect and deserve,” Mr Cahill concludes.
“the assertion by the IPCA that Police cannot take voluntary fingerprints from youths is ridiculous”
lol, this is the biggest load of ****.
Cahill knows very well that youths are not ‘voluntarily’ giving up identifying information because they’re peer pressured to do the cool thing and be fingerprinted by Police.
Why can’t this pansy admit that it’s not voluntary and that to the extent that there would be a decrease in crimes solved, it’s because police wouldn’t be able to force/blackmail/whatever teenagers to give up fingerprints. If Cahill cared about the law, rather than fat cheques for cops who spend more time harassing motorists than solving crimes, he would recognize that if fingerprinting teens is something that is good and justified, it should be codified in law. He doesn’t.
Typical authoritarian flannelling.
Greg O’Connor would be proud.
in what way do random photos in an unsearchable data base improve crime solving? serious question….some cop has the job of clicking through 1000s of photos looking for a badly identified crim…haven’t we got past big books of mug shots?
Oh, you better believe that these photos are going into a searchable data base. Just like the drivers license photos and passport photos that you thought, naively, were just for your drivers license and your travel across borders, it will all go into the big police spy database*.
* Make sure to wear spray tan and add fake tats for your drivers license photos, FTP
A Liberal Democracy folks behaving like a dictators wet dream
Biometric data is defined as: ‘Personal Data generated from measurable human biological and behavioural characteristics, which can be used for identification.’ If a photograph is not a measurable characteristic, why take it?