Judge Says, Record DNA of Everyone In the UK

Many readers informed us about the opinion of Lord Justice Sedley, a senior UK Appeal Court judge, who said that everyone in the UK should have their DNA recorded in the national database — including visitors. Reader ChiefGeneralManager writes, "Sedley calls the current database 'indefensible' because it contains a hodge-podge mix of people, including children and those who have been in contact with the police. His view is that we should make it compulsory for all DNA to be recorded to remove this anomaly. The UK Information Commissioner has expressed some concerns, but not dismissed the idea outright." And reader john.wingfield adds, "Just under two weeks ago, the Independent reported that the Government has admitted that an eighth of all records on the DNA database are false, misspelled, or incorrect — over half a million records. This raises the possibility of a breach of the 4th data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998: 'Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.'"

Comments

England & Wales only

[Anonymous Coward]

In Scotland, DNA is only kept on record if you are convicted. If not, any DNA taken must be destroyed. This new (and insanely stupid) idea has already been rejected http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6979451.stm

Human rights court

[BlueParrot]

If they do try to put this motion in place then it is time to appeal to the European court of human rights. They have bitch-slapped governments for authoritarian crap before and they can do it again. If that doesn't work then it is time to take to the streets. Identity cards, detentions without trial, and now this, things have gone too far...

Re:Oh, sure.

[Dausha]

"Why not? In the U.S., don't we already record fingerprints at birth?"

Nope. Having had a few kids, I have never seen them fingerprinted at birth. The Hospital takes a footprint at birth to make sure the mother walks out with the same baby she walked in with. However, that information is not transmitted to law enforcement. The US of A does not record fingerprints at birth like you think.

Re:Identity card not needed anymore

[neoform]

Not that I support it in any way (I think it's a completely invasive law), but they already do this in Canada, and have been since 1994 on all newborns.

Re:Oh, sure.

[Chatterton]

'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy

Abstract:
In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: I've got nothing to hide. According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.

I've Got Nothing to Hide

Re:Oh, sure.

[VJ42]

F The government (in the USA anyway) has at LEAST the following: Your full name, birth record, race, eye color, hair color, parents names and IDs, your social security number, address, drivers license number, license plate, vehicle VIN number, vehicle registration number, insurance information, bank account numbers, credit account history, mortgage information, phone number (if you have ever included it on a form or called them from home, but they can get it on request anyway if you haven't), tax history, employer name(s), payroll information, fingerprints (from birth, typically elementary school age in most states, and adulthood if you've ever been to a police station or filed them voluntarily), your dental records and medical records (by request of a judge or coroner), military ID and rank (if any), and the list goes on.
Fingerprints are not kept by the UK government unless you've ever been suspected of a crime, and taken down to the local cop shop (I live in the UK, one reason I'm boycotting travel to the USA is because they want my prints; my own government doesn't even have them, why should I give it to a foreign one). Well that was true until this year anyway now they also take them if you want a new passport (aledgely to harmonise biometrics with other countries; in reality the only country demanding this is the USA, I can still travel to any other EU country without even getting a passport).

Re:DNA samples tend to clear the innocent ...

[RadioElectric]

IANAMG (I am not a molecular geneticist) but I've taken an undergraduate module in genetics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the identifying information used in police databases of DNA does not contain the complete genetic code of the individual, only samples of where it tends to vary the most between individuals. Because of this, I don't THINK the data would be kept in such a way that would allow it to be analyzed to find anything except for a genetic match with a sample or to determine if there is a blood relationship. That's not to say that I as a UK citizen I don't oppose this completely, I'm still worried about it for other reasons.