I was being a little bit tongue in cheek, but I think the debate is far more complicated than either view of "if you've done nothing wrong" or "I don't like big brother".
I don't believe that anybody has been convicted purely on fingerprint evidence; however a lot of people have been convicted because their fingerprints were found at a scene of crime which has allowed further investigation and evidence to show they were responsible. Likewise there are people that have arrested ad then released with no further action being taken - the perception of which is that it was a wrong arrest but which in reality is part of the process of arrest. Generally arrest if for investigation - if it weren't the case then people would be taken straight to court and never to a police station. Unfortunately arrest is necessary to questions people, ask them to account for their actions which appear to be criminal, but also to give them their chance to speak and give an explanation.
I support anyone's desire for freedom and human rights, but in a balanced society we have to have a balanced view that accepts that if people break the law and commit crimes against each other then sometimes people will get arrested and released, or charged and found not guilty. That is the beauty of our legal system and one that shows that we're not yet in a police state. People get found not guilty, people get released, and there are checks on the system. It's not always popular, mistake happen 9everybody's human) and the press love a good story.
I still come back to the view that a more sophisticated approach is needed than simply "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide" or "I don't like big brother."