Information can be a crucial component in effective crime control. Indeed, the U.S. government maintains hundreds of databases with a variety of information on individuals for the purpose of crime prevention and investigation. For example, the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database contains more than 30 million records and can be accessed by more than a half million users within thousands of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The system can compare a fingerprint to more than 1,000 database prints in a second, and more than 10 million NCIC records are accessed annually for criminal investigations and civil background checks. The FBI has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for radio frequency spectrums to enable wireless access to the NCIC database for law enforcement agents in the field.
Information held in third-party databases about individuals is also often available to law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of citizens, making it unlawful for law enforcement agencies to invade that privacy without appropriate court orders. Although this amendment has made it difficult for law enforcement to tap phones and perform on-site searches, the courts have been more lenient in allowing law enforcement access to bank records, phone numbers, and other personal information held in third-party databases.
One of the central tasks of law enforcement is to identify individuals with certainty. Verification of identity through unique physical characteristics is the primary means for accomplishing this. Photos and fingerprints have been the mainstay techniques for many decades. More recently, the FBI's Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) has provided a national database of scanned and digitized fingerprints. With access to this system, state and local agencies have come to rely on fingerprinting as a primary identification technique. For example, California and New York require all welfare beneficiaries to be fingerprinted-New York's system extends to all members of the recipient's family. California is now requiring thumbprints on drivers' licenses, and several banks fingerprint customers who do not have accounts with the bank before cashing checks for them.
With the increased use of DNA identification techniques in criminal cases, DNA databases are also growing. A number of states have laws allowing the collection of DNA samples from all convicted felons. The FBI has plans to create a computer network to link the state databases to create a national DNA database similar to the AFIS. A proposal by the Department of Defense would create an even larger DNA database. The plan calls for collecting DNA samples from all current and former military personnel.
Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States have launched a pilot program in which international travelers will be issued a smart card that records the unique geometry of the traveler's hand. Each time travelers pass through customs, they present the card and place their hand in a reader that verifies their identity. The system also contains links to numerous databases. The four countries have signed an agreement facilitating data sharing and eventually requiring all international travelers to use the cards.
All these example databases involve potentially huge volumes of data. Modern database management technology is essential if the data stored is to be retrieved in an effective and timely manner. A database with millions of fingerprints is of little practical use if it takes days to search it for a match. Likewise, a hand recognition system will hardly be useful at airport customs facilities unless it provides very rapid response. Indeed, the combination of fast, flexible database systems and computer networks places stored information at the center of many activities.
A simple but powerful example of how database technology can affect law enforcement occurred in San Francisco a few years ago. In 1984, an 84-year-old woman was murdered during a burglary. The police were unable to solve the case, despite the fact that they were able to get fingerprints from the crime scene. The fingerprints from the unsolved crime were stored in the San Francisco police database. In early 1992, the San Francisco police database was networked with the Alameda County police database. Once these databases were linked, police began cross-checking fingerprint and other data files. The print taken from the 1984 crime scene matched a relatively new print taken in connection with a petty theft case. Eight years after the fact, the police were able to solve the murder case. Two women were implicated. They were 12 and 15 at the time of the 1984 crime, explaining why their prints were not found in the 1984 San Francisco police database. As national fingerprint, photo, and DNA databases grow in size and search capabilities, it becomes more and more difficult for criminals to commit crimes and avoid identification.
The Thailand Central Population Database and ID card system, developed by the U.S. company Control Data Systems, features an integration of identification and database technologies. A government-issued smart ID card contains electronic fingerprint and facial image data. The card is linked to computer databases, controlled and maintained by the Interior Ministry, covering the entire Thai population.
The system enables access to an amazing variety of information: Central Population Database, National Election System, Political Party Database, Political Member Database, Voter Listing, Electronic Minority Group Registration System, Electronic Fingerprint Identification System, Electronic Face Identification System, Population and House Report System, National Tax Collection System, Village Information System, Secret Information System, Public Opinion System, Criminal Investigation System, National Security System, Social Security System, Passport Control System, Driver Control System, Gun Registration System, Family Registration System, Alien Control System, and Immigration Control System.
The Thai system represents an impressive technological achievement,
but it also raises many questions about the protection of a citizen's privacy.
How much information about its citizens should a country collect? Who should
have access to this information? Should the individual's permission be required
before certain information is collected and stored in databases? Should an individual
be able to access his or her own information and challenge its accuracy? These
are difficult questions: Surely society benefits when such national databases
are available, but surely opportunities for abuse of this information arise.
We can expect the debate about such government national database projects to
continue for years.