Feeds

100,000 'erroneous' records on DNA database

Load failures of 26,000 are part of the problem

Maximizing your infrastructure through virtualization

The complex relationship between the police, the National DNA Database Unit and the forensic service has left the UK's DNA database with at least 100,000 erroneous records, The Register can reveal.

Which makes the NDNAD Unit's admission in its annual report today that between 1995 and 2005 it failed to load 26,200 records to the DNA database because of errors sound trifling. 183 crimes went undetected as a result of this failure.

90 per cent of these 26,200 "load failures" only occurred after the NDNAD was linked the Police National Computer (PNC) in 2001. After the link was created, new NDNAD records were routinely checked against the PNC and if they were found to be erroneous, were rejected.

But prior to 2001, most erroneous records were not being picked up and so were inputed direct onto the NDNAD, and are still there today, a spokesman for the NDNAD Unit admitted today.

"There's in the order of 100,000 unreconciled records now," said the source.

"We don't actually know," he said when asked exactly how many erroneous entries the database contains.

"There was a lower stringency on loading checks. There might have been an error but it wouldn't have been apparent," he added.

It would have been more accurate for the NDNAD to say in its report today that between 1995 and 2005 approximately it tried to load 126,200 erroneous records onto the database, of which only 26,200 were stopped by the system.

The revelation also makes a mockery of the Home Office's claim today that the problem had been cleaned up already.

"Swift action was taken to resolve the situation and by January 2006 all the profiles had been investigated and subsequently loaded or otherwise resolved," it said in a statement.

According to the annual report, about 80 per cent of the 26,200 load failures had been cleaned of errors and loaded. The other 100,000 records would have been load failures if they had been added to the database after 2001. But they weren't and they are still on the NDNAD.

The spokesman said that a further 10 per cent of records on the DNA database, which contains about 4.1m records, are duplicates. These are records that have identical DNA samples as other records on the database, but different identifying information.

The extent of data errors in DNA database only came to light after it was linked to the PNC in 2001 because, though the link was primitive, it was nevertheless good enough to reject about 10-12 per cent of DNA samples because of errors stemming from one of their key identifying numbers. These errors stemmed, said the spokesman, from the one part of the procedure that was still still done on paper.

The reasons why the problems were never tackled, he said, was because of poor co-operation between the police, the DNA database unit and the forensic service companies that process the samples, which in England and Wales are the Forensic Science Service, LGC Ltd and Orchid Cellmark.

Police DNA samples are identified and linked to both the DNA database and the PNC with two unique numbers. One of these is automatically printed on a label, along with a barcode, in a police officer's DNA sampling kit. The other is the Arrest Summons Number, which a police officer writes by hand onto the sample label.

The samples are sent to the forensic service firms for processing, where both numbers are inputted into a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). This information is then emailed to the DNAD Unit, where another computer system automatically extracts the information and sticks it in a skeleton DNA record, which would have been created when a police officer took the original sample.

If the lab technician misread the police officer's hand writing, there would be mismatch because both numbers need to match a corresponding record in the PNC in order for the DNA record to be loaded successfully.

These problems only came to light when the PNC link was established in 2001 because records were refused onto the DNAD unless they could be matched with the PNC. The extent of this problem, with 10 to 12 per cent of records failing to load, was found to be so great that it swamped the forensic firms.

"The [forensic] suppliers had a backlog built up largely because the suppliers hadn't been able to get the support of the police force," said the source.

"The electronic link revealed the extent of the problem," said the source, "The problems were there before but they were in the database. Now the DQIT team are looking at cleaning it up."

The DQIT (Data Quality and Integrity Team) of the DNAD Unit started dealing with the forensic service firms' backlog in 2005 after the police gave them a link to the PNC. Neither the forensic firms nor the police had to pull their finger out to clean up their administrative mess - the DQIT did most of it for them.

So the load failure rate for DNA samples was wheedled back to its current 1 per cent, but prior to 2001, the problem records were not being identified because no checks were being made on the two key identifying numbers.

"Until we had the Data Quality and Integrity Team, we didn't know about the problem," said the spokesman today.®

Application security programs and practises

More from The Register

next story
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
Major problems beset UK ISP filth filters: But it's OK, nobody uses them
It's almost as though pr0n was actually rather popular
US Social Security 'wasted $300 million on an IT BOONDOGGLE'
Scrutiny committee bods probe derailed database project
HP, Microsoft prove it again: Big Business doesn't create jobs
SMEs get lip service - what they need is dinner at the Club
ITC: Seagate and LSI can infringe Realtek patents because Realtek isn't in the US
Land of the (get off scot) free, when it's a foreign owner
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
Australia floats website blocks and ISP liability to stop copyright thieves
Big Content could get the right to order ISPs to stop traffic
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Prevent sensitive data leakage over insecure channels or stolen mobile devices.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Application security programs and practises
Follow a few strategies and your organization can gain the full benefits of open source and the cloud without compromising the security of your applications.
The Essential Guide to IT Transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIO's automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise.