Evaluating Collection and Storing of Fingerprint Information by Government

December 8, 2022

Evaluating Collection and Storing of Fingerprint Information by Government

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Evaluating Collection and Storing of Fingerprint Information by Government

[Order Now]

Do you believe that the government’s (local, state, federal) collection and storing of fingerprint information causes a conflict with the privacy or civil liberties of American citizens? Why, or why not?

Reply to my classmate’s post telling why you agree by presenting questions, alternative analysis, challenges to their assumptions and claims (with research), on how he arrived at his conclusions (minimum of 250 words).

Classmate’ S Post

No, I do not believe that the various government sectors’ collection and storage of a person’s fingerprint information causes a privacy conflict or a conflict with the American Civil Liberties Unions’ overall purpose. There are circumstances which permit a government allowance of the legal collection and what would be considered transfer of a person’s fingerprints.

Also, there are authorized agencies or databases that provide or have the jurisdiction to review and present identification based on fingerprint submission from law enforcement or even an employer for legal or employment requirements purposes.

Circumstances that would permit a government entity such as a local, state or federal to lawfully collect and allowing examination of a person’s fingerprints could fall under the areas of unlawful criminal behavior, employment verification process/step, and even military service requirements.

So, basically as American citizens we submit authorization for this process for one reason or another. As a result, fingerprint submissions are stored and can be verified through the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system. “In 1999, the FBI initiated full operation of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the largest AFIS in the United States, which links state AFIS computers with the FBI database; in 2014, it was replaced and integrated into the NGI system” (Saferstein & Roy, 2021, p. 136, para.2).

Finally, a violation of a person’s rights regarding the objective of the American Civil Liberties Union would only apply if the fingerprints were not obtained under the accordance of the law and its legal boundaries. All of the information presented above regarding the collection of a citizen’s fingerprints and the violation of his/her privacy is addressed by the FBI under Public Law 92-544.

Our fingerprint holdings are divided into two categories – criminal and civil. A criminal card is exactly as the name implies. It is the fingerprints of an individual who has been arrested and charged with a crime. A civil card is submitted regarding an individual who is seeking employment in certain positions, such as federal employment, the military, or the banking/securities industry; or is adopting a child; seeking U.S. citizenship; or serving as a volunteer (e.g., at a child or senior day care center) and requires a national fingerprint background check as part of the screening process.

Civil fingerprint checks are submitted to the FBI based upon a specific federal law authorizing a national fingerprint background check or based upon a state statute or a municipal ordinance, if authorized by a state statute, authorizing a national background check in compliance with Public Law 92-544. (FBI.gov, para. 3)

References

FBI.gov (n. d.). FBI Fingerprint Program. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/fbi-fingerprint-program

Evaluating Collection and Storing of Fingerprint Information by Government

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.