The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Police to keep innocents' DNA despite human rights ruling

Home Office's six-year plan

Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software

The government is today expected to announce police will retain DNA profiles from innocent people for up to six years, following a court defeat.

The proposals have already been criticised by the human rights watchdog as not going far enough.

At present, data is retained from every person arrested for any offence forever, and only ever removed from the National DNA Database with the permission of Chief Constables.

The proposed six-year maximum retention period for innocent people replaces earlier proposals to retain profiles for up to 12 years. That policy was based on incomplete research that scientists disowned.

The Home Office was obliged to re-examine DNA retention after it lost the case of S and Marper at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) last December. A panel of judges described indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA as a "blanket and indiscriminate" power.

Today's expected announcement will bring England and Wales closer into line with the ruling, but will not take account of the EHCR's concern that "data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected".

In Scotland, DNA profiles are retained from innocent people for a maximum of five years, and only when they have been involved in a violent or sexual offence inquiry.

The independent Equality and Human Rights Commission has said the expected proposals do not satisfy the EHCR's ruling.

The plan will also set up a clash with the Tories, who have called for English and Welsh DNA retention policy to be brought into line with Scotland.

More than five million people are now on the National DNA Database. About a million have never been convicted of any crime. ®

Cloud based data management

Latest Comments

@Graham Marsden

Okay, I take it my attempt has failed dismally. I now realise my questions sound like arguments in favour of everyone being on the National DNA Database - not at all what I'd intended!

I shall have to stand in the stupid corner, and think about what I've done.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Crime Scene versus suspect samples.

Personal data must be relevant, not excessive and necessary for a legitimate purpose the exemptions for crime, national security and intelligence purposes are not a carte blanche to collect and retain personal data - just in case it might be handy. Elimination samples fufil their purpose when no match is found so why keep them for far longer and for wider purposes than was consented and understood.

Victims are asked to provide fingerprints and DNA , so it is not only potential suspects but also victims of crime who have concerns. Why not keep crime scene samples until incidents are resolved and destroy elimination samples on elimination and keep matches while cases are active or an unspent conviction exists?

The police should be more considerate of consent and public trust. CrimeWatch often asks for suspects saying they can eliminate the innocent - will you volunteer a sample or propose a potential suspect if this is kept on the police database linked to a serious crime regardless of whether a match is found or not? The police will tag those who make a youthful error and the innocent for 12 years after a suspected event. Unnecessary, excessive and disproportionate and probably of very little benefit to the police or public.

0
0

@Anonymous Coward 12th November 2009 06:23 GMT

> how to boil it down to a conveniently concise, rhetorical question?...

ITYM a politically convenient, loaded, straw-man, sound-bite question that ignores the issues...

> "who would you rather trust?"

I would rather that the state trusts me, rather than considering me to be a suspect for *every crime* that has been committed for which DNA has been gathered!

> (Feel free to copy and paste my humble effort into relevant threads elsewhere.)

You mean like threads about idiots who think that "if you have nothing to hide..." is a sensible way of deciding how the justice system works...?

0
0

More from The Register

SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
 breaking news
 breaking news
Ecuador: All right, Julian, you CAN stay on our sofa - it's your human right
Minister and Wikileaker share cosy chat in tiny London flat
Google flings another £1m at online child sex abuse vid CRACKDOWN
See, see, we're trying, ad giant tells Daily Mail UK.gov
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
 breaking news
BBC lied to Parliament about doomed £100m IT monster, thunder MPs
Axed DMI ballooned and burst while watchdogs sang Kumbaya
NSA whistleblower to tech firms, Obama: 'Grow a pair!'
Ed Snowden: Email tracking grabs 'IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything'
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights