Slashdot Log In
Human Rights Court Calls UK DNA Database a 'Breach of Rights'
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Dec 04, 2008 03:28 PM
from the could-have-saved-them-some-time dept.
from the could-have-saved-them-some-time dept.
psmears writes "Describing a judgment that is likely to rein in the scope of the UK DNA database, where at present the DNA of those arrested by the police is kept permanently (even if the people concerned are never convicted, or even charged), the BBC reports that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that keeping such people's DNA in the database 'could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.'" Reader megla adds a link to the full text of the judgement.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they already do this in the US with fingerprints. No conviction? Well, if we find your fingerprints at any crime scene in the future, you're gonna get it.
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its an important part of "maintaining democracy" rather than so much of a part of it. The forces of power and greed will always migrate towards a fascist dictator or ruling class. The US is on it's way to being a democratically elected Social-Fascist society. Operating in the shadows is the only way to avoid this.
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'll happily post your bank account number and PIN code, then? How about your Social Security number and real name (and if not a US Citizen, similar ID)?
Privacy may or may not be "contrary to democracy", but it is essential to any civilized society. I seriously do not want or need to know how often you do anything sexual and in what ways. I also have zero interest or need to know your bank account access details, what kind of food you eat or may be allergic to, or any other detail that is usually private for that matter.
That's the thing - there's a huge difference between information that is in the Public Interest (e.g. criminal records, court proceedings, Deeds and property abstracts, etc), and stuff that only you know about and would prefer to not spread around.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy relies on people having access to as much information as possible so they can make wise decisions. Privacy is contrary to democracy.
A bold but vague statement.
Access to information is good, but it should be relevant information. A lot of private information is irrelevant to participation in a democracy.
Parent
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy relies on people having access to as much information as possible so they can make wise decisions.
I think you're confusing democracy with capitalism. Capitalism requires the public to have as much information as possible about products and organizations. Democracy requires the government to have only as much information about its citizens as are necessary. As others are pointing out, privacy is necessary to avoid tyranny.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, thought you got the memo. Apathy and complacency on the part of the masses has allowed for the replacement of true democracy with a hollow, farcical version of the same.
Note to self: trademark the term "Democracy Theatre".
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
At, or at least not later than, the time the secret ballot became an important part of democracy.
Parent
Re:Figures... (Score:4, Insightful)
They are certainly part of a democracy. In fact, they are part of very many democracies.
They are not essential to democracy in theory, though they have proven to of benefit to free and fair elections (without which there is no real democracy) in practice.
True.
I would not agree with that assessment, though the open ballot isn't the sole problem which contributed.
I would argue that that demonstrates vividly one of the ways the secret ballot has proven essential to free and fair elections, without which any claim to democracy is a sham.
Physical harm is not the only form of retaliation and source of intimidation to be concerned about, but it certainly is the most important one.
Sure, no one is ever assaulted for their expressed political views in the US.
"Most people that are for secrecy"? That's, in the US at least, not far from a majority of the population, as the secret ballot isn't even a slightly controversial issue in the US.
Parent
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure where you live, but Secret Ballots [wikipedia.org] are part of just about every western democracy. That's right, privacy is pretty much integral to all modern democracies.
Parent
Re:Figures... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been told that in Michigan if you are not convicted you can file to have your fingerprints pulled from the database. I don't know how it works elsewhere.
Parent
Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy (Score:4, Informative)
Me too... DOH, I DO!!! :(
And following the usual patterns of copying bad things from the states, police are to be issued with tasers over here too.
Actually, they already have them, but only firearms officers (who receive the requisite training for handling all firearms that normal officers don't) can currently use them, but that's set to change soon.
So expect to see deaths in police custody on the increase.
In the usual fascist Home Secretary model, the current one Jacqui Smith is particularly vile. She's constantly 'disappointed' when her evil schemes to subjugate us are thwarted. First it was their defeated ID cards scheme, now this judgement.
To get around this (the ID card/DNA debacle), she's currently trying to push new legislation through (hidden in another bill) to open up private information allowing every government department access to your records from another department. So the DVLA (Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Authority) will be able to gain access to your financial history, medical records, education history... anything. As will the police, benefits departments, you name it. Currently to do this it needs to be passed by parliamentary oversight, but the new legislation will allow this with the OK of a single minister on a whim. This government have a horrible track record for their inability to keep data safe, so this is a nightmare waiting to happen even forgetting the massive breach of rights.
To top it all off, there's a clause in the bill which will allow it to be OK'd to pass this information to other non-governmental bodies (but fails to stipulate who) - scary huh!?
The surveillance state was just a beginning, welcome to our new Stasi nation (now with added corporate sponsorship)
Parent
The terrorists have won! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, now whenever someone gets off, they'll bemoan those "damn bleeding heart liberals who let another one get away over their preeeeciiious rights". What nobody on either side of the debate wants to admit is -- you can't have a perfect justice system. No matter how much technology, funding, profiling, science, and everything else you throw at it, it will be flawed. Innocent people will be found guilty, guilty people will get away, and there will always be doubt and speculation.
As a society we have to decide what's more important: Catching as many criminals as possible, or providing a system that is as fair as possible. The two are mutually exclusive -- you either bias towards letting the guilty get away so the innocent are not needlessly punished, or you sacrifice some innocents to "protect the greater good".
The Court here has basically told the UK -- The rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Err, you do realize that DNA matching can still be done if someone is still in the process of being tried for a crime, right? You can also keep the lab results of such matching forever... just not the DNA itself.
The ruling only says that you can't keep it forever, not that you can't use whatever DNA you find/get during the process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed true. Also, terrorists don't win unless you allow them to influence your policymaking process. So stop telling us to give up rights.
(I got my views on terrorism from Laura Roslin)
Re:The terrorists have won! (Score:5, Insightful)
> With this ruling, what they're saying now is that this hypothetical person would walk, because the DNA sample would not be in the database.
Yes, the same way his DNA wouldn't be in the database, when he hadn't have been arrested for a crime he didn't commited in the first place.
Or the same way, this hypothetical person walks free, because not all persons are DNA sampled from birth, or have to wear a GPS tagged collar the whole day around.
The point is, a person being arrested, but not convicted, is not guilty. The same way everyone else is.
Parent
Re:The terrorists have won! (Score:4, Informative)
A major problem starting to crop up is that some areas can't afford to keep the people incarcerated as tax income drops and municipalities go bankrupt.
Having 2% of your population incarcerated starts to be a financial drain. Especially as federal laws are enforced regarding their living conditions and medical care.
Our dumb (tm) drug laws are largely responsible or this. However, large privately run prison corporations are starting to be self perpetuating (even backing new laws that require prison time with lobby money - and yup-- large contributors to keep drugs illegal). (e.g.) http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0059032 [slingshot.tao.ca]
Oh.. and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the DNA database will not be flushed. They'll find some way to keep it- including just ignoring the ruling.
Parent
Hold on a moment. Wacky Jackie might not agree (Score:3, Insightful)
The Home Sec (aka Wacky Jackie Smith. You know the one who says 'I knew nothing' about the police raiding an Opposition MP's office like they do every week in Zimbabwe) is reviewing the implications of the Judgement.
From that I read 'Ok Chaps how can we get out of this fine mess you have got me into?'
And an underling pipes up
'Just DNA Test Everyone. That way there can be no discrimination'
However the Court is getting wise to the tricks of NuStasi (sorry New Labour) and is going to monitor the compliance with their ruling closely.
Re:Hold on a moment. Wacky Jackie might not agree (Score:5, Insightful)
The police have really overstepped the mark these past few years and it's showing with their latest search of the MPs office.
They think their above the law and I'm sick of these policemen that never get charged with doing anything wrong.
Off the top of my head the police have been caught speeding, killing people because their visa expired, racial abuse, searching without a warrent, etc. They're above the law and I am happy they have been bought down a peg, even though it's a pretty small victory.
They still no to be more responsible for what they do.
Parent
MP (Score:3, Informative)
MP = Member of Parliament (in other words, one of the UK's elected representatives in Parliament - much like a Senator in the US)
MP = Member of Parliament (Score:3, Informative)
That'd be Member of Parliament [wikipedia.org] to all those not familiar with parliamentary nomenclature. So the Home Secretary siccing the police to raid an opposition party member's offices might be vaguely analogous to the Bush Administration abusing its official powers to bully US Attorneys into resigning [washingtonpost.com] for not kowtowing to the party line. I.e., a power freak seeing how far they can stretch their authority and get away with it.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cynical about the EU no longer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I'm cynical about the EU. To be sure, there is a lot of completely pointless and stupid busy work such as regulating the curvature of bananas and so on. On the other hand, the UK government seems capable of such outright maliciousness that the only thing we have left is the EU. I'll take bouts of stupid and useless over bouts of mindless repression any day.
The sad thing is, we neither elect the EU nor the house of lords. Yet I find myself agreeing with them much more often than with the elected government. Well, what do you expect? Despite getting only 37% of the votes cast, they act like they earned their large majority.
Re:Cynical about the EU no longer. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Change of considerations (Score:3, Interesting)
Whereas most people in the UK consider the Euro court of human rights to be a bunch of interfering busy bodys or jobsworths, and in general most of the rulings they come up with do come across as 'annoying'.
Ruling like this however are the reason the court was set up. I do hope this ruling stands and that this court will continue to keep its eye on privacy issues like this and prove to the population in general that it does have a purpose.
NPE
Got to love the Home Secretary (Score:4, Insightful)
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement "
Su-fucking-perb! If I ever get nicked and found guilty of an offence I'll be sure to use that one as I wave two fingers at the Judge.
As we have seen only this week over here the Police are out of control, the Government are scared of them and it is slowly dawning on people we have just sleep walked into a police state.
The cops turn up at your door, seize computer equipment, lets be honest you aren't going to get your kit back for a good year at least, even if your innocent. While they have it they can demand all passwords, failure to comply gets you up to two years. Then they get to take your DNA and fingerprints. If you match up at any crime scene you better have a decent alibi son, "cos the Database don't lie". (Just don't mention the Shirley McKee case)
About time too (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument is often made that it is a handy tool for solving past crimes and if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear. I beg to differ.
There have already been cases of criminals planting false DNA on crime scenes (Dr. John Schneeberger of Canada) and, while the technology is very useful, it is not the be all and end all of evidence.
Easily fixed (Score:5, Funny)
Jacqui Smith will just ensure we're no longer listed as a democratic society. That should side-step this issue.
No one said it better than old Ben Franklin (Score:4, Interesting)
The insight of those from hundreds of years ago still amazes me.
Wise men, no?
I tried so hard to think up an insightful comment (Score:5, Informative)
I really did, I tried so hard to think up an insightful comment in response to this story but all that I could do was sit giggling to myself at how upset Jacqui Smith is over this and how she aint gonna sleep well tonight.
For those that don't know, Jacqui Smith has been involved in or is responsible for:
- UK ID card scheme where every citizen has a biometric ID card
- A national database of every single child's details
- 42 days of detention without trial for terror suspects
- This very DNA database of even innocent people
- Plans for a scheme to store all telephone call, text message and e-mail records
- Massive nationwide CCTV surveillance programs
- Silencing of political opponents by using heavy police force
- Allowing local councils to use terrorist laws to spy on citizens to catch them for such offences as trying to get their kids into a specific school outside their catchment area or letting their dog foul in a public place
- Creating a scheme for newspapers to put up wanted posters from CCTV images of people dropping litter
There are plenty more but simply too many for me to remember all of them right now. This woman is evil and must be stopped, period. We can't put the blame on just her however because people like Gordon Brown have the power to stop her but aren't and opposition parties could be far, far more vocal about how evil this woman actually is and yet they're not.
I'm pretty sure the lives of our grandparents here in the UK and the rest of the world weren't given on the beaches of Normandy, the fields of France and other places so that it would eventually be our own government that would rise up against us and begin to enforce the same level of dictatorship as seen in the many facist nations during World War II. The very fact Jacqui Smith is pushing for this kind of regime should make it the responsibility of everyone with the power to make a noise- politicians, media and so forth to stand up and refuse to accept this. It is the complacency and ignorance amongst the average joe on the street towards this type of thing that makes me understand now how over time evil totalitarian regimes can arise.
I do not believe Britain will every reach the point Jacqui Smith is hoping thanks to the EU injecting at least a little bit of common sense into the situation as per this article but the very fact that she has been allowed to get this far is simply unacceptable in a modern, free society.
Effective end to biometrics? (Score:3, Informative)
This indeed is one of the best decisions of the EU, particularly in that it ends the whole biometric scam, at least for here. Since DNA and fingerprints are the most 'stable' biometric measures, all other methods, disproved over 100 years ago, would seem to be included. The ramifications of this are great from ending (real)ID cards to George Bush's false "War on Terror".
This is real change. Funny it starts in Europe.
right or wrong - does not matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My complaint about the committee that approves (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about "selling your DNA to insurance companies"?
Or in case of Great Britain - losing a USB stick with all your private data _and_ DNA data.
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, what is the government going to do with my DNA? Clone me? Invade my privacy by finding out what diseases I'm vulnerable to?
Use it to drag you out of your house and charge you with a crime you may or may not have committed, just because a computer says that you might be the suspect based on that DNA (when in truth you may well not be). All it would take is for a small database corruption or some programmatic error, and suddenly you end up having a lot of explaining to do, even if you have nothing to explain.
There's also the 'what if' angle of if/when your government gets repressive. Easier to figure out where and who you are down the road when they have DNA to match you up against...
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Insightful)
All it would take is for a small database corruption or some programmatic error
Actually, less than that. All it takes is a misunderstanding of statistics. If you have a large DNA database and a DNA sample from a crime-scene, then if you use it to find suspects - as many politicians would like to do - then you are bound to get a significant number of false positives, even when the tests are very accurate. The "1 in a billion" statistics that get thrown around regarding DNA matches estimate the chances of two random people matching. Once you expand your search to a country of 60m, the chances of a coincidental match is significant. Read up on the birthday paradox. And because people are told the "1 in a billion" statistic, whoever gets fingered for the crime is seen to have a massive chunk of evidence pointing to his guilt.
There's also the 'what if' angle of if/when your government gets repressive.
That argument has never really held weight with me. Do you also advocate gay people remaining in the closet? After all, if people know that they are gay, then if the government decides to execute gay people, they are fucked. How about atheists? People who wear glasses?
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding me? This is the government that loses data left, right and centre and you don't mind them maintaining your DNA?
Then perhaps you'd like to hear about the case in the US where two men one white, one black both had the same genetic markers in the police database?
or how about when you are called in for a crime you didn't commit like Jill Dando case where they matched the wrong guy's DNA. The evidence was so strong there right? The amount of DNA evidence was almost nothing yet the court was in the mindset of DNA == foolproof.
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Informative)
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20 [latimes.com]
Google it yourself next time [letmegoogl...foryou.com].. or is that too difficult for you?
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Informative)
It is probably worth noting that DNA evidence can be wrong... There have been numerous cases in which a false positive led to someone being wrongly imprisoned. The probability of false positives is significantly higher than most people realize as well. This mostly has to do with the fact that they only sequence part of your DNA -- the parts most likely to differ from one person to the next. This introduces a statistical error rate.
It's a dirty little secret.
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Insightful)
Not particularly, no. I don't really mind the government maintaining a DNA database.
This is the same UK government that is so expertly careful about protecting [scmagazineuk.com] personal [theregister.co.uk] information [securitypark.co.uk]. Any information you give them (and I mean anything... contact details, date of birth, NI number (=SSN for you Americans), medical history, tax returns, your library borrowing list that shows you have a penchant for lycanthropic porn, etc. etc.) you may as well cut out the middleman and post it on MySpace for the world to read, chances are it will become that public in short order anyway. And you're willing to trust them with your DNA?
In that case I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing...
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Do I mind if the government keeps my DNA on fil (Score:5, Informative)
...
How about convict you of crimes you didn't do? Here's how it goes down.
It is a popular misconception that DNA tests uniquely identify people. That would be true (ignoring twins...) if they compared at enough positions. However, such tests are expensive. So what they actually do is compare at a few positions.
This is not enough to uniquely identify you. It is enough to narrow the possibilities down to, in a good case, a handful of people. When that is combined with non-DNA evidence, it is almost certain.
For instance, suppose you've got a woman raped, robbed, and murdered. Through traditional police methods, you find out that she was seen shortly before the crime arguing with her ex-boyfriend who was stalking her, and that she had a pizza delivered where the delivery man turned out to be a paroled serial rapist, and finally, a burglar had been known to be working the neighborhood at the time of the crime, and he had some of her jewelry when he was caught a few days later (but claims he found it on the ground and was never in her house).
Do a DNA test on those three suspects and get a match on one, and you've got your criminal. Sure, there might be a dozen (or even hundreds or thousands, depending on the test you do) people in the world that match, but the chances that someone would have been identified as a suspect through non-DNA traditional police methods AND be one of those dozens (or hundreds...) are low.
In other words, the proper way to use DNA testing is to use it in a Bayesian fashion with other evidence to seal the deal.
Without safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the database (such as using it to pick suspects in lieu of finding suspects the old fashioned way), an incomplete DNA database is a major risk to your rights, if your DNA is included.
Parent
Re:Breach of rights until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice troll, but I'll bite. The one crucial aspect you're missing has to do with the word "arrested". It's justifiable to store somebody's DNA after he's been convicted. But an arrest is just an accusation. There is no due process, no judge, no jury, nothing of the sort. There ought to be no penalty for an arrest alone. That's what "due process" means.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quite. There were accusations that the Met made an unusually large number of uncharged arrests at Notting Hill this year so they could build up a profile of black Londoners.
(Notes for Americans and other foreigners; the Met=the London police force which has a history of racism and locking up opposition MPs. The Notting Hill Carnival is the largest Afro-Caribbean festival in the UK)
Re:Breach of rights until... (Score:4, Insightful)
...one of the people that got arrested and released does a crime against you or your family. Then the breach of rights complaint that the person made mysteriously disappears.
Breach of rights? What rights? The right to NOT have your DNA stored in a government database if you were to get arrested for committing a crime?
Stop right there. As far as the law is concerned, the person who's accused of committing a crime against you may or may not have done so. It is up to the justice system to decide whether or not they did, and once that decision is reached, if the answer is "not guilty" (or, for that matter, "we aren't pressing charges"), they are entitled to receive exactly the same treatment by any member of society (or indeed society itself) as if the suspicion had never occurred.
That's the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty", it's been the whole point of British justice for centuries.
What you're effectively advocating is that a person who has ever been arrested for any reason, should be automatically considered "more likely a criminal" than the rest of the general public - even though the police may have kept them for no more than a couple of hours before realising they'd made a mistake and releasing them without charge.
The only fair way to deal with that - and, what I suspect, the home office may well advocate if they think they can get away with it - is to take DNA samples from the entire population.
Parent
Re:Implications for US border control? (Score:4, Interesting)
A debatable question. Maybe the Europeans should take samples of visiting Americans DNA and see if they match any crime scene samples in Europe. After all we know that DNA matches are 100% proof of guilt. Well apart from the 1 in 200,000 random match rate of course. How many Americans are there? 200 Million did you say. Excellent, our crime clear up rates will be significantly improved once we start banging up foreign nationals! The human right of privacy is all we have left against bad science in the field of information technology based criminology. Lets match your IP address against my corrupt file of kiddy porn sites shall we and put your children in state care. Or better still lets put you in gitmo because some war driving suicide bomber had the tools to crack your pathetic wpa encryption. good luck you trusting soul.
Parent
Re:National soverignity? (Score:4, Informative)
Would someone who knows please explain how the EU Court has jurisdiction over national laws? Has the UK (and other countries in the EU, for that matter) ceded its soverignity to the EU to such an extent that the EU acts as a Supreme Court? Is the EU as a whole like the Federal government is to the US states or Canadian provinces? I really do not know myself and am asking for a serious answer. Thanks.
It's not an "EU court" it's part of the Council of Europe [wikipedia.org], which whilst it share a flag with the EU is a separate body with different membership. When we signed the European charter of Human rights (this was soon after WW2 and IIRC it was largely written by British solicitors), we ceded any powers in that treaty to the ECoHR, after all that's how international treaties work.
Parent
Re:National soverignity? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would someone who knows please explain how the [European Court of Human Rights] has jurisdiction over national laws?
The same way the WTO has jurisdiction over the US -- they signed a treaty that said that they will abide by the decisions of the international body.
Of course, unlike the states of the US, any country is significantly more free to simply ignore the rulings, thought not without impunity. Ignoring the ECHR could mean severe potential trade problems with the rest of Europe but could also just mean having to pay some fines every now and then. Heck, Italy gets dragged before the court regularly for failure to provide a speedy trial and just pays off the fines and ignores making changes to their entrenched legal system -- at least according to my law prof, they do.
Parent