> If I could be confident that the data would *only* be used for mAnatching
> against wanted criminals (eg fingerprints taken from crime scenes) and that
> it would be held very securely instead of being lost in transit between
> government/police, then I'd have no qualms about the data being retained
> indefinitely.

> On Feb 5, 8:37 pm, "Mortimer" privacy.net> wrote:

>> If I could be confident that the data would *only* be used for mAnatching
>> against wanted criminals (eg fingerprints taken from crime scenes) and that
>> it would be held very securely instead of being lost in transit between
>> government/police, then I'd have no qualms about the data being retained
>> indefinitely.

>
> And while our current government might be trustworthy an competent,
> would you be willing to risk your information to a future government
> that could use the information for anything.
>
> Fortunately the train doesn't have such silly restrictions. Yet.

> Paul Weaver wrote:

>> On Feb 5, 8:37 pm, "Mortimer" privacy.net> wrote:

>>> If I could be confident that the data would *only* be used for mAnatching
>>> against wanted criminals (eg fingerprints taken from crime scenes) and that
>>> it would be held very securely instead of being lost in transit between
>>> government/police, then I'd have no qualms about the data being retained
>>> indefinitely.

>

>> And while our current government might be trustworthy an competent,
>> would you be willing to risk your information to a future government
>> that could use the information for anything.

>

>> Fortunately the train doesn't have such silly restrictions. Yet.

>
> A lot of people would say the current government fails...