I think the comment is pointing out that if your child is kidnapped and raised elsewhere, there will not be a reason to fingerprint them then for comparison unless there's already a reason to think they may have been kidnapped.

That is, it might help on the back end, but the comment is suggesting that mass fingerprinting is not likely to move the needle much.

A small chance is better than no chance. I was answering to the privacy concern, not the effectiveness of the method. It seems like a plausible business model to professionally collect hold biometric data encrypted with the owner's keys, opaque to the party storing the data.

It's a bit like the businesses that store umbilical cord stem cells for the very unlikely chance they'll be useful at some point in the future.

Got it. I had thought you were responding to the part you quoted.

That's a very good point. Sorry for the confusion.

I think thier point was even if you registered your kids fingerprints with the police they are not going to go around to every kid in all the dinners checking fingerprints to compare to.

My point was to only release the information to the police if and when the kid needs to be located.

release what valuable information here? What information is being "released" that is going to be helpful in a way that if it wasn't for the FBI App, you would be regretting it?

My suggestion was to have the information with you, and release it to the police if and when privacy concerns are not as relevant in comparison.