Fingerprinting annoyance

in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
i have never been fingerprinted before
i am not very keen on the idea now
of course refusing will attract suspicion
short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for
me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints
on those cute little cards without it being obvious?
i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
working method.
is there no privacy advocate who can help me?

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:

<snip>
> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> working method.
> is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> 

I think most privacy advocates would advise, "Refuse to submit."  It 
sounds like you're looking for more of a hack on the fingerprinting process.

Normally, you're not going to be allowed to manipulate the card yourself. 
You're going to have to be printed by a "tech" (read: trusted by big
brother) who's going to ensure that those prints are really yours.  Sort
of like a key certificate.  If you really can dork the card, have ten
different people volunteer one print each.  There's no way that they'll
ever be able to use that as evidence in a court or for any other purpose,
either.

Another fun thing to do is to use prints from dead people.  A
friend who works in a hospital can help.  Medical students can sometimes
get access to dead bodies, but many used for teaching purposes (the
bodies, not the students) already have the skin removed, thus they have no
prints.  Best to examine those dead digits yourself before sneaking in the
card and ink.  I also understand that taking prints from a corpse can be 
difficult, so plan on having a friend help or on having some rigging 
equipment to get the appropriate positioning for the body.  Pre-detached 
or detachable limbs would be helpful. 

If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously 
"fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card.  However, 
they'll not submit the card until the prints are "good," so this sort of 
betrays your intent of at least appearing to cooperate with them.  In the 
law enforcement community, they are taught how to take prints by force 
but it's unlikely that your tech will attempt any such technique.

You can mutilate the tips of your fingers so that prints cannot be 
acquired, but this hurts.  Badly.

You could get some false latex coverings for your finger tips, but they'd 
have to be damn good to fool a tech.  Likely to cost big bucks, too.

I know of no chemical or physical "pre-treatment" that can be used to 
hack the ink transference process.  Perhaps one of the chemists here on 
the list might know of some good technique.

If you want professional help, I've heard talk of a fingerprint expert in
California who offers expert testimony in courts, and so forth.  His name
is Greg Moore.  He is, however, a retired cop.  I do not know how willing
he'd be to give you expert advice on hacking a fingerprint card, but it's
worth a try.  He would most likely at least answer some questions about 
the fingerprinting process, depending upon how pleading and helpless you 
can sound.  You can reach him at gmoore@lightlink.satcom.net.  He 
may be willing to help you for free, or perhaps for a fee. 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
|      Liberty is truly dead              |Mark Aldrich                 | 
|    when the slaves are willing          |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering     | 
|     to forge their own chains.          |maldrich@grci.com            | 
|        STOP THE CDA NOW!                |MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil | 
|_______________________________________________________________________| 
|The author is PGP Empowered.  Public key at:  finger maldrich@grci.com |
|    The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author     | 
|         and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever.           | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

He who wants an Other Guy to certify him as a good guy is a supplicant. If 
the Other Guy wants you to get naked and stand on your hands in front of 
the Dutch Queen's front lawn, then that's their rule and you make your 
choice about obeying.

If the Other Guy wants your fingerprints so he can check whether you're 
escaped from prison for a mail fraud conviction, well: that's their rule.
If you want the Other Guy to certify your good character, then give your 
fingerprints. If you don't like it, then ply your trade without their 
peice of paper. You don't have a God-given right to have the peice of paper.

Your customers and clients can decide if they still want to hire you.

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> > working method.
> > is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> > 
> 
> I think most privacy advocates would advise, "Refuse to submit."  It 
> sounds like you're looking for more of a hack on the fingerprinting process.

You can refuse, and the service or permit applied for will be witheld. 
Not very productive.

> 
> Normally, you're not going to be allowed to manipulate the card yourself. 
> You're going to have to be printed by a "tech" (read: trusted by big
> brother) who's going to ensure that those prints are really yours.  Sort
> of like a key certificate.  If you really can dork the card, have ten
> different people volunteer one print each.  There's no way that they'll
> ever be able to use that as evidence in a court or for any other purpose,
> either.
> 
> Another fun thing to do is to use prints from dead people.  A
> friend who works in a hospital can help.  Medical students can sometimes
> get access to dead bodies, but many used for teaching purposes (the
> bodies, not the students) already have the skin removed, thus they have no
> prints.  Best to examine those dead digits yourself before sneaking in the
> card and ink.  I also understand that taking prints from a corpse can be 
> difficult, so plan on having a friend help or on having some rigging 
> equipment to get the appropriate positioning for the body.  Pre-detached 
> or detachable limbs would be helpful. 
> 
> If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously 
> "fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card.  However, 
> they'll not submit the card until the prints are "good," so this sort of 
> betrays your intent of at least appearing to cooperate with them.  In the 
> law enforcement community, they are taught how to take prints by force 
> but it's unlikely that your tech will attempt any such technique.
> 

I know of no such instance (other than some informal "fingerprint the 
kiddies for safety" schtick) where it's a do-it--yourself operation. 

While the methods listed are clever, they and many other finaglings are 
the main reason it's done in the "light of day" by a tech.

> You can mutilate the tips of your fingers so that prints cannot be 
> acquired, but this hurts.  Badly.

Doesn't always work. Partials can be extrapolated to yield a relative match.

> 
> You could get some false latex coverings for your finger tips, but they'd 
> have to be damn good to fool a tech.  Likely to cost big bucks, too.

Wont work. The hands are checked first for signs of tampering.

> 
> I know of no chemical or physical "pre-treatment" that can be used to 
> hack the ink transference process.  Perhaps one of the chemists here on 
> the list might know of some good technique.

Pineapple juice and other weak acidic subtances ruin the ridges on the 
finger tips causing them to smear or not show at all. Unfortunately, this 
takes a period of time and constant handling of such items.

> 
> If you want professional help, I've heard talk of a fingerprint expert in
> California who offers expert testimony in courts, and so forth.  His name
> is Greg Moore.  He is, however, a retired cop.  I do not know how willing
> he'd be to give you expert advice on hacking a fingerprint card, but it's
> worth a try.  He would most likely at least answer some questions about 
> the fingerprinting process, depending upon how pleading and helpless you 
> can sound.  You can reach him at gmoore@lightlink.satcom.net.  He 
> may be willing to help you for free, or perhaps for a fee. 
>  

There may be a book or to on the subject. The local library may carry 
refernce or other materials on police, detective and forensics. You 
can also try Revolution Books in Seattle WA. They deal in the esoteric.

...Paul

Paul:

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> There may be a book or to on the subject. The local library may carry 
> refernce or other materials on police, detective and forensics. You 

	<< From the 1990 Loompanics Unlimited Catalog >>

	The Fingerprint Identification System 

	How Intelligence Agents Change Their Fingerprints

	Loompanics Unlimited
	P O Box 1197
	Port Townsend WA 98368

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
*			     OR					     *
*								     *
*       http://members.tripod.com/~graphology/index.html             *
*								     *
***********************************************************************

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> > > working method.
> > > is there no privacy advocate who can help me?

[...]

> > If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously 
> > "fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card.  However, 
> > they'll not submit the card until the prints are "good," so this sort of 
> > betrays your intent of at least appearing to cooperate with them.  In the 
> > law enforcement community, they are taught how to take prints by force 
> > but it's unlikely that your tech will attempt any such technique.
> > 
> 
> I know of no such instance (other than some informal "fingerprint the 
> kiddies for safety" schtick) where it's a do-it--yourself operation. 

Not _technically_ perhaps.  But in most cases it's a
go-down-to-the-police-station-and-have-them-sign-the-card operation.  Who
is it that can tell a random signature from a police signature exactly?
Like I said, standard print cards are available at the GPO.

> While the methods listed are clever, they and many other finaglings are 
> the main reason it's done in the "light of day" by a tech.

Or _theoretically_ done in the light of day by a tech.

> > You can mutilate the tips of your fingers so that prints cannot be 
> > acquired, but this hurts.  Badly.
> 
> Doesn't always work. Partials can be extrapolated to yield a relative match.

Depends on what you are looking to do.  If your goal is to deter random
searching through a national database, mutilation will probably be very
effective.  If they have the prints of the murderer (you) and you're a
suspect, mutilation aside from actually removing the fingers isn't going
to do anything.

> > 
> > You could get some false latex coverings for your finger tips, but they'd 
> > have to be damn good to fool a tech.  Likely to cost big bucks, too.
> 
> Wont work. The hands are checked first for signs of tampering.

See above about tech end around.

> > 
> > I know of no chemical or physical "pre-treatment" that can be used to 
> > hack the ink transference process.  Perhaps one of the chemists here on 
> > the list might know of some good technique.
> 
> Pineapple juice and other weak acidic subtances ruin the ridges on the 
> finger tips causing them to smear or not show at all. Unfortunately, this 
> takes a period of time and constant handling of such items.

This is interesting.  I suspect that you'd have to have major damage to
the ridges however.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> > > > working method.
> > > > is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > If you're forced to do this in person with a tech, you can continuously 
> > > "fight" the grip they have on your hand and smudge the card.  However, 
> > > they'll not submit the card until the prints are "good," so this sort of 
> > > betrays your intent of at least appearing to cooperate with them.  In the 
> > > law enforcement community, they are taught how to take prints by force 
> > > but it's unlikely that your tech will attempt any such technique.
> > > 
> > 
> > I know of no such instance (other than some informal "fingerprint the 
> > kiddies for safety" schtick) where it's a do-it--yourself operation. 
> 
> Not _technically_ perhaps.  But in most cases it's a
> go-down-to-the-police-station-and-have-them-sign-the-card operation.  Who
> is it that can tell a random signature from a police signature exactly?
> Like I said, standard print cards are available at the GPO.

Thats fine, but tell me it's going to play at the clearance level...It 
won't.

> 
> > While the methods listed are clever, they and many other finaglings are 
> > the main reason it's done in the "light of day" by a tech.
> 
> Or _theoretically_ done in the light of day by a tech.
> 
> > > You can mutilate the tips of your fingers so that prints cannot be 
> > > acquired, but this hurts.  Badly.
> > 
> > Doesn't always work. Partials can be extrapolated to yield a relative match.
> 
> Depends on what you are looking to do.  If your goal is to deter random
> searching through a national database, mutilation will probably be very
> effective.  If they have the prints of the murderer (you) and you're a
> suspect, mutilation aside from actually removing the fingers isn't going
> to do anything.

If there is a serious crime involved, partials are sufficient to make the 
"guest list" if there are other mitigating factors to even suspect you 
might be involved. That's doesn't mean you'll make it to the top, but it 
can certainly cause some painful scrutiny.

> 
> > > 
> > > You could get some false latex coverings for your finger tips, but they'd 
> > > have to be damn good to fool a tech.  Likely to cost big bucks, too.
> > 
> > Wont work. The hands are checked first for signs of tampering.
> 
> See above about tech end around.

Again, process will work, but not allowed in context of clearance.

> 
> > > 
> > > I know of no chemical or physical "pre-treatment" that can be used to 
> > > hack the ink transference process.  Perhaps one of the chemists here on 
> > > the list might know of some good technique.
> > 
> > Pineapple juice and other weak acidic subtances ruin the ridges on the 
> > finger tips causing them to smear or not show at all. Unfortunately, this 
> > takes a period of time and constant handling of such items.
> 
> This is interesting.  I suspect that you'd have to have major damage to
> the ridges however.
> 

There needs to be suffcient damage to the ridges by some chemical or 
mechanical means (sand paper, concrete, brick, etc.) to remove the 
distiguishing ridges, and not replace them with a traceable pattern of 
any kind. 

Scraping the fingertips runs the risk of leaving trace marks that are 
just as good as the ridges you tried to remove - even better if you've 
left finger prints as a result. The point to the game is not to search 
any database, but to produce a verifiable match with evidence at the 
scene of any crime. In the case of a clearance, it is to start or 
validate an identification process. IF validation is unobtainable via 
fingerprints, then the issuing body can employ other means (such as 
retinal scans) or deny clearance all together.

...Paul

On Wed, 15 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> > Paul S. Penrod wrote:

> > > I know of no such instance (other than some informal "fingerprint the 
> > > kiddies for safety" schtick) where it's a do-it--yourself operation. 
> > 
> > Not _technically_ perhaps.  But in most cases it's a
> > go-down-to-the-police-station-and-have-them-sign-the-card operation.  Who
> > is it that can tell a random signature from a police signature exactly?
> > Like I said, standard print cards are available at the GPO.
> 
> Thats fine, but tell me it's going to play at the clearance level...It 
> won't.

Agreed.  I never claimed this.

> > > Doesn't always work. Partials can be extrapolated to yield a
> > > relative match.
> > 
> > Depends on what you are looking to do.  If your goal is to deter random
> > searching through a national database, mutilation will probably be very
> > effective.  If they have the prints of the murderer (you) and you're a
> > suspect, mutilation aside from actually removing the fingers isn't going
> > to do anything.
> 
> If there is a serious crime involved, partials are sufficient to make the 
> "guest list" if there are other mitigating factors to even suspect you 
> might be involved. That's doesn't mean you'll make it to the top, but it 
> can certainly cause some painful scrutiny.

Again, it depends on the degree of "mutilation."  Distortion of major
features is fairly effective even against partial attempts which are
matched by computer.

[Laytex]

> > > Wont work. The hands are checked first for signs of tampering.
> > 
> > See above about tech end around.
> 
> Again, process will work, but not allowed in context of clearance.

Concur.

> Scraping the fingertips runs the risk of leaving trace marks that are 
> just as good as the ridges you tried to remove - even better if you've 
> left finger prints as a result. The point to the game is not to search 
> any database, but to produce a verifiable match with evidence at the 
> scene of any crime. In the case of a clearance, it is to start or 
> validate an identification process. IF validation is unobtainable via 
> fingerprints, then the issuing body can employ other means (such as 
> retinal scans) or deny clearance all together.

Careful.  Even Central Intelligence Agency print requirements are for
criminal background check only.  They will run through FBI files and so
forth and keep the prints for their records, but they are rarely if ever
used as identification verification per se.

This is because not everyone in the world has fingerprint files floating
around.  If you are getting printed for the first time ever and you
distory or mutilate, there's nothing to compare to.  Further, if you just
distort, you're prints later might not match well when computer searches a
nationwide database (which excludes CIA employees in any event).

It's all about application.

To repeat, if you're looking to "estlablish" a false print index,
distortion is a good way to do it.

If you're looking to evade a search which has already narrowed you down
well, hack off some fingers.

> ...Paul

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

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:
> > > Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> 

<...>

> > > > Doesn't always work. Partials can be extrapolated to yield a
> > > > relative match.
> > > 
> > > Depends on what you are looking to do.  If your goal is to deter random
> > > searching through a national database, mutilation will probably be very
> > > effective.  If they have the prints of the murderer (you) and you're a
> > > suspect, mutilation aside from actually removing the fingers isn't going
> > > to do anything.
> > 
> > If there is a serious crime involved, partials are sufficient to make the 
> > "guest list" if there are other mitigating factors to even suspect you 
> > might be involved. That's doesn't mean you'll make it to the top, but it 
> > can certainly cause some painful scrutiny.
> 
> Again, it depends on the degree of "mutilation."  Distortion of major
> features is fairly effective even against partial attempts which are
> matched by computer.

Agreed, but there are other factors to consider. For example, it is not 
everyday that someone runs their fingers over sandpaper (via sander or 
not). This may indeed destroy the tell-tale finger print initially, but 
it leaves a distinguishing pattern, that can be matched to other evidence 
such as blood, DNA, fiber, etc. In some instances like this, the computer 
is useless to match finger prints, and balance of the decision rests with 
incriminating evidence. To wit: the "mutilated pattern" provides key 
identification if a good print is lifted and matched directly to the 
suspect - even though a copy of the "new" print doesn't exist.

> 
> [Laytex]

The smart ones use this for starters..

> 
> > > > Wont work. The hands are checked first for signs of tampering.
> > > 
> > > See above about tech end around.
> > 
> > Again, process will work, but not allowed in context of clearance.
> 
> Concur.
> 
> > Scraping the fingertips runs the risk of leaving trace marks that are 
> > just as good as the ridges you tried to remove - even better if you've 
> > left finger prints as a result. The point to the game is not to search 
> > any database, but to produce a verifiable match with evidence at the 
> > scene of any crime. In the case of a clearance, it is to start or 
> > validate an identification process. IF validation is unobtainable via 
> > fingerprints, then the issuing body can employ other means (such as 
> > retinal scans) or deny clearance all together.
> 
> Careful.  Even Central Intelligence Agency print requirements are for
> criminal background check only.  They will run through FBI files and so
> forth and keep the prints for their records, but they are rarely if ever
> used as identification verification per se.
> 
> This is because not everyone in the world has fingerprint files floating
> around.  If you are getting printed for the first time ever and you
> distory or mutilate, there's nothing to compare to.  Further, if you just
> distort, you're prints later might not match well when computer searches a
> nationwide database (which excludes CIA employees in any event).
> 
> It's all about application.

I never maintained that the CIA or other body employs more than the standard 
issue. What I am saying is that there are other methods out there to 
validate means believed to be compromised - should a situation warrant 
such invasive techniques. I have never encountered any situation that 
called for anything other than fingerprints - even inside DoD (which in 
my opinion can be far more paranoid than the agencies).

> 
> To repeat, if you're looking to "estlablish" a false print index,
> distortion is a good way to do it.
> 

Agreed.

> If you're looking to evade a search which has already narrowed you down
> well, hack off some fingers.
> 

whatever...

...Paul

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:

> Pre-detached 
> or detachable limbs would be helpful. 

I nominate this for quote of the week.

In general, my answer remains, "Do you really want to work for an
organization that would make you do this? What are they going to make you
do next?" 

-rich

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Mark O. Aldrich wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:
> > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> > working method.
> > is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> 
> You can mutilate the tips of your fingers so that prints cannot be 
> acquired, but this hurts.  Badly.

	I thought Old School bank robbers used sand paper to remove their
prints before a "job". Would this mung the prints enough?

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon <remailer@2005.bart.nl> wrote:

> in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
> asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
> i have never been fingerprinted before
> i am not very keen on the idea now
> of course refusing will attract suspicion

Honorable Senator, if you wish to work for the government (or certain
other orgs with a big impact on the public, or in certain highly sensitive
posts, like armed security guard), then you simply have to put up with
this. Especially if you're working for *my* government, or flying *my*
airplane, or guarding *my* money, it's not in my interest to help you.

So... don't work for the government. Work for yourself, or for someone who
treats you like a grownup. Liberty ain't always free and easy.

> short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for
> me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints
> on those cute little cards without it being obvious?

Sneak into a morgue (I assume you wouldn't even consider involving a third
party who isn't already dead).

See to it that you're never fingerprinted a second time. 

Actually, if you simply give them a mirror image of your prints, some
matching techniques might fail... 

-rich

> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon <remailer@2005.bart.nl> wrote:

> > in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
> > asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
> > i have never been fingerprinted before
> > i am not very keen on the idea now
> > of course refusing will attract suspicion

> Honorable Senator, if you wish to work for the government (or certain
> other orgs with a big impact on the public, or in certain highly sensitive
> posts, like armed security guard), then you simply have to put up with
> this. Especially if you're working for *my* government, or flying *my*
> airplane, or guarding *my* money, it's not in my interest to help you.

> So... don't work for the government. Work for yourself, or for someone who
> treats you like a grownup. Liberty ain't always free and easy.

I can't speak to the honorable senator Exon's situation, but my brother
is being required to provide his fingerprints to prove that he is fit to
be the legal guardian of his wife's daughter.  And it isn't his wife,
currently the sole legal guardian, who is questioning his fitness or
demanding his fingerprints.

And on another thread, if rights are simply restrictions on the
government and not attributes (inate, even) of the individual, then they
are meaningless.


-- 
if not me, then who?
mailto:ethridge@onramp.net
http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Allen Ethridge wrote:

> I can't speak to the honorable senator Exon's situation, but my brother
> is being required to provide his fingerprints to prove that he is fit to
> be the legal guardian of his wife's daughter.  And it isn't his wife,
> currently the sole legal guardian, who is questioning his fitness or
> demanding his fingerprints.

It's times like those that Jim Bell makes some sense. SOME.

-rich

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> On Tue, 14 May 1996, Allen Ethridge wrote:
> 
> > I can't speak to the honorable senator Exon's situation, but my brother
> > is being required to provide his fingerprints to prove that he is fit to
> > be the legal guardian of his wife's daughter.  And it isn't his wife,
> > currently the sole legal guardian, who is questioning his fitness or
> > demanding his fingerprints.
> 
> It's times like those that Jim Bell makes some sense. SOME.
> 
> -rich
> 

DON'T encourage him... :-)

...Paul

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:

> in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
> asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
> i have never been fingerprinted before
> i am not very keen on the idea now
> of course refusing will attract suspicion
> short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for
> me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints
> on those cute little cards without it being obvious?
> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> working method.
> is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> 

First off, if you were born in the US, they have your feet and/or hand 
prints on record. Secondly, fingerprints are not an absolute proof 
positive means of identification. They are sufficiently unique enough 
that it satisfies the statistical error acceptability for many 
governmental agencies.

I wouldn't worry about it personally. There are more effective ways of 
getting around such things if you really need to. If you don't have any 
historical baggage, then don't make waves.

...Paul

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:
> 
> > in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
> > asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
> > i have never been fingerprinted before
> > i am not very keen on the idea now
> > of course refusing will attract suspicion
> > short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for
> > me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints
> > on those cute little cards without it being obvious?
> > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> > working method.
> > is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> > 
> 
> 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.

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 preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 1996, Paul S. Penrod wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:
> > 
> > > in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
> > > asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
> > > i have never been fingerprinted before
> > > i am not very keen on the idea now
> > > of course refusing will attract suspicion
> > > short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for
> > > me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints
> > > on those cute little cards without it being obvious?
> > > i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> > > working method.
> > > is there no privacy advocate who can help me?
> > > 
> > 
> > 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?

> 
> 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.

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.

...Paul

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.

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?

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).

> > 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?

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.

> 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.

> ...Paul
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

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

On Mon, 13 May 1996, Senator Exon wrote:

> in connection with a character and fitness report i have been
> asked to supply a review board with a set of my fingerprints
> i have never been fingerprinted before
> i am not very keen on the idea now
> of course refusing will attract suspicion
> short of getting someone else to put their fingers in ink for
> me does anyone have a cute method by which to obscure my prints
> on those cute little cards without it being obvious?
> i can fill out and manipulate the card myself i just need a
> working method.
> is there no privacy advocate who can help me?

This all depends on your application.

If you're trying to avoid specific identification when you are already a
suspect of some crime or some such, you're in trouble.  Short of finding a
dead person with no print record himself and no prior history, you don't
have many options.

Using someone else's prints risks you acquiring their criminal record of
past present and future.

If, on the other hand, you are seeking to preemptively foil later computer
checks of your prints you are in luck.

Most fingerprint indexing schemes rely on specific features in prints
which are ranked and reduced to a checksum of sorts.  To foil a massive
nation wide computer search which may flag your prints, you have to be
sure that the checksum of the prints you submit and the actual checksum of
your real prints are two significantly different values.

Generally speaking fingerprint requirements that are not related
to national security issues permit you to submit a card with the signature
of a "law enforcement officer" who made the prints.  I assume that this is
the case with your situation.

In this event you can indeed do the prints yourself.  Simply use a foam
(not felt) ink pad to make the print impressions on the card.  Sign
whatever name you feel sounds official.  (The GPO prints out standard
cards for this exact purpose, I assume you have one already).

Before doing your own prints, go out and buy some superglue (gel is best)
and the finest sewing needle you can find.

Those places which are covered in superglue will repel the ink and leave a
blank spot when your finger is rolled across paper or the card.

By applying a very small amount of superglue to the high ranking features
of your fingerprints using the needle as a sort of paintbrush, you can
alter the computer checksum of your prints without attracting undue
attention to the visual appearance of the prints you submit.  Think of it
as the ability to erace certain features of your prints.  Obviously it is
important to know which features are significant to the indexing
system.  I'm not enough of an expert to know myself how to describe them
to you nor do I know for certain the most recent ranking systems of
features.

This is a tedious process and causes hand cramps.  It is, however,
extremely effective when properly done.

Any national computer search trying to locate the identity of your
real prints will likely skip right by your earlier submitted and distorted
prints.  A visual inspection, however, is unlikely to be fooled.

Some others have given you the advice that you should simply "refuse to
submit" prints.  I disagree.  A distorted record, especially if you create
one pre-emptively, will be especially beneficial while a refusal will
simply attract attention.  I recognize that some of the people on the list
here are a bit more "in your face" about their politics, but it is, for
example, hard to practice law without a professional license.  All the
constitutional arguments in the world don't mean anything when it comes to
actually making a living without a required professional license.

I compare it to the ease with which one submits a fake social security
number rather than simply refuse to submit one at all.  A fake one wont
raise any eyebrows, refusal will.

"What do you have to hide anyhow? Eh?"

Best of luck.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com