Crime, identity and data privacy

Advances in the field of criminological technology have allowed us to combat crime in an unprecedented way. (Genetic) Fingerprints and biometric identification have made it possible to track criminals with a very low degree of uncertainty left, assuming that data bases contain the necessary amount of personal information.

That leads to a problem: How would a free market gather this kind of information, given that we would lack the central database system we're confronted with today? Government just takes the data by decree, but can a market participant? Do we have a right to privacy, or is this as much a right as IP is property? Furthermore, of what use is, say, a genetic fingerprint if we do not know which person it belongs to? After all, stuff like ID cards would not be mandatory in a free market, and thus identification must rely on other means.

A government solution to crime would be: collect biometric data of everyone. Once a crime is being committed, look for traces, compare and catch the suspect. What could a free market approach possibly look like?

While ID cards wouldn't be mandatory in a legal sense, I think we'd still see demand for identification services.  I know I'd want to be able to identify the guy who I'm thinking about hiring for my company, making a loan to, offering health insurance, etc.

If private detective agencies wanted additional data, they could compensate the identification companies to collect it.  Of course, this would create tension (in a good way) between the demand for such data and the demand for privacy.  In the end, the market would find the most desired level of privacy combined with the most useful personal data for solving crimes.

i think we need to figure out who owns shedded skin.

PeterWellington:

If private detective agencies wanted additional data, they could compensate the identification companies to collect it.  Of course, this would create tension (in a good way) between the demand for such data and the demand for privacy.  In the end, the market would find the most desired level of privacy combined with the most useful personal data for solving crimes.

But doesn't that mean a rich person could simply hire a company with strict privacy policies in order to avoid personal data being leaked? I know I would pay a lot, especially in an age of genetic tinkering when your DNA may be used to brew some poison specifically targeted at you, to keep my biometric information secret if I was in some sort of important position that leads to a lot of personal enemies.

i think we need to figure out who owns shedded skin.

The property owner on whose ground the skin has dropped down, unless otherwise specified?