Going slightly off the immediate topic of the fingerprint machine here, Alan, but that is sloppy thinking. The "I'm innocent and therefore have nothing to fear from ...[insert whatever the flavour of the month is for curtailing the public's civil liberties]" argument is really poor and is what has led us into the situation we're in now with extensive state infringement on our civil liberties.
If you extend the logic you've used then will you object to a government spy camera in every room of your house, including your bedroom, linked back to a police monitoring station? Because, apparently a lot of crime goes on behind closed doors. Criminals conspiring, thieves dividing up their loot, drug dealers etc. The police could clear up a lot of crime with these new powers. Surely if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear?
Our need for privacy does not, in any way, imply that we have something to fear or hide. This is completely wrong and, as I said above, lazy thinking. To invade your privacy, someone should have a very good reason. One valid reason would be if you were committing criminal acts or strongly suspected of doing so. Then, with due process of law, the police could invade your privacy for a strictly limited period, associated with the alleged criminal activity.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time "just in case" a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good. In fact it is the innocent who have the most to fear. Criminals and terrorists will simply find a way around detection methods – it will be a minor irritation (or even an opportunity) to them. Only the careless and guileless will be caught up in the bureaucratic nightmare. It is they who will be fined and criminalised for any one of the proposed ‘ID crimes’ such as failure to renew on time.