> Yes. You may be eligible for a motion to seal or expunge and in that case they would be sealed or destroyed. Otherwise, they are public record.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/little-fanfare-fbi-ram...

> Being a job seeker isn’t a crime. But the FBI has made a big change in how it deals with fingerprints that might make it seem that way. For the first time, fingerprints and biographical information sent to the FBI for a background check will be stored and searched right along with fingerprints taken for criminal purposes.

http://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/countries-adopt-biomet...

etc.

1) There are tons of ways you can end up in a public database with all of that linked to your fingerprints.

2) Background checks require fingerprints, ever ask yourself how secure that information is? [ Hint: Not so much, much like SSNs, you have to assume they are public knowledge if you've ever had this happen. ]

3) Voting records in quite a few countries include this information and they are basically public record.

> Most people don't leave their name/address/uid along side those prints. Imagine this scenario: you are hanging out at your friend's house, for whatever reason you find yourself handling his dildo, he sells it on ebay, 4chan buys it and lifts your prints, your mother gets a call...

Yes they do.

You are intentionally being obtuse if you don't see how a fingerprint database is "sensitive". The argument doesn't take practicality into consideration, potential bad actors just jumped from:

1) The government

2) Anybody who would go through the trouble of very noisily pulling all the scattered public data together

To:

1) Anybody

While I am of the opinion that any data held by a third part (to include the government) should be considered insecure, that doesn't blind me to the practical impact of a massive data dump.

I guess I consider that Anybody but fair enough.