DNA database 'breach of rights'
Thousands of DNA samples from innocent people are now retained
Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The men's information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.
The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.
The judges said keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "disappointed" by the European Court of Human Rights' decision.
The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe.
Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.
Discriminatory
The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.
Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs, less the money already paid in legal aid. The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement
Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary
The court found that the police's actions were in violation of Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life - of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It also said it was "struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales".
The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard".
The court also ruled "the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
'Privacy protection'
The home secretary said: "DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month.
"The government mounted a robust defence before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement." FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Human rights group Liberty said it welcomed the court's decision.
Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This is one of the most strongly worded judgements that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights.
"That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver."
Phil Booth, of the NO2ID group, which campaigns against identity cards, said: "'This is a victory for liberty and privacy.
"Though these judgements are always complicated and slow in coming, it is a vindication of what privacy campaigners have said all along.
"The principle that we need to follow is simple - when charges are dropped suspect samples are destroyed. No charge, no DNA."
Rights breach claim
One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001.
He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. He had no previous convictions.
The other man - a teenager identified as "S" - was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but later acquitted.
In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody.
The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.
They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life.
The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences.
The Home Office has already set up a "contingency planning group" to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favour of the men.
from bbc news
DNA database 'breach of rights'
DNA database 'breach of rights'
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
DNA database 'breach of rights'
well i want mine taken off
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
DNA database 'breach of rights'
jimbo;1077193 wrote: your having a sex change ?????????:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
my son i will leave that to you
my son i will leave that to you
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
The police do not have a legal right to take DNA or fingerprints unless they have been arrested.
What are they doing being arrested??????? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
If no crime has been commited and the arrestee is not charged with any offence, the person has the legal right to ask for their data to be destroyed. This can even be done in their presense.
What are they doing being arrested??????? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
If no crime has been commited and the arrestee is not charged with any offence, the person has the legal right to ask for their data to be destroyed. This can even be done in their presense.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
DNA database 'breach of rights'
oscar;1077344 wrote: The police do not have a legal right to take DNA or fingerprints unless they have been arrested.
What are they doing being arrested??????? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
If no crime has been commited and the arrestee is not charged with any offence, the person has the legal right to ask for their data to be destroyed. This can even be done in their presense.
wrong again
What are they doing being arrested??????? :rolleyes::rolleyes:
If no crime has been commited and the arrestee is not charged with any offence, the person has the legal right to ask for their data to be destroyed. This can even be done in their presense.
wrong again
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
DNA database 'breach of rights'
Breach of rights crap!!! What is the difference between having one's picture on file (couldn't that be a breach of rights?) , their fingerprints and DNA? Tell me how either photos, fingerprints or DNA would be used by anyone, to the detriment of whose prints and DNA is being used.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
Lon;1077393 wrote: Breach of rights crap!!! What is the difference between having one's picture on file (couldn't that be a breach of rights?) , their fingerprints and DNA? Tell me how either photos, fingerprints or DNA would be used by anyone, to the detriment of whose prints and DNA is being used.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.
Thank you Lon....... Well said.
In the fight against global terrorism, even if our government made this law, I could see the benifit's.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.
Thank you Lon....... Well said.
In the fight against global terrorism, even if our government made this law, I could see the benifit's.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
el guapo;1077347 wrote: wrong again
Wikki confirms what i said about only some-one arrested having to produce dna. in England and Wales.
United Kingdom National DNA Database - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikki confirms what i said about only some-one arrested having to produce dna. in England and Wales.
United Kingdom National DNA Database - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
DNA database 'breach of rights'
i was a witness to a serious crime in the course of the investigation
my dna was needed
was told by the police that after it was taken i had no right to have it destroyed
my dna was needed
was told by the police that after it was taken i had no right to have it destroyed
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
DNA database 'breach of rights'
SuzyB;1077436 wrote:
Thats what I believe to be the case too
I agree with you
Was you asked to give DNA for elimination? They can request DNA but they also ask if you want it to be destroyed, if this didn't happen contact the police station that took them and put in writing that you want them destroyed.
will only destroy then in extraordinary circumstances that what the law says
Thats what I believe to be the case too
I agree with you
Was you asked to give DNA for elimination? They can request DNA but they also ask if you want it to be destroyed, if this didn't happen contact the police station that took them and put in writing that you want them destroyed.
will only destroy then in extraordinary circumstances that what the law says
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
el guapo;1077439 wrote: will only destroy then in extraordinary circumstances that what the law says
I know of two people, one very closed to me who has had dna and fingerprints destroyed by the police. Both were done in their presence because they wanted to see it for themselve's.
One of them, i know fact, simply did it by requesting they destroy in writing but he did via solicitor's letter.
I know of two people, one very closed to me who has had dna and fingerprints destroyed by the police. Both were done in their presence because they wanted to see it for themselve's.
One of them, i know fact, simply did it by requesting they destroy in writing but he did via solicitor's letter.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
DNA database 'breach of rights'
Innocent people could have DNA records removed
Nearly a million innocent people could have their records removed from the national DNA database after a court ruled that holding them breached their human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights severely criticised police powers to take and hold samples from suspects even if they are released or cleared.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was disappointed with the ruling and would consider it carefully before responding.
Human rights groups welcomed the judgment and called for the Government to follow Scotland where police routinely destroy profiles of those either acquitted or not charged.
In a unanimous ruling, the Strasbourg court condemned the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of powers given to police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The ruling could have important implications for fingerprint databases as the judges said holding innocent people's print details could also infringe their rights.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty which helped fund the case, urged ministers to let Parliament debate new database rules.
"This is one of the most strongly-worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights," she said.
"That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British Government has shamefully failed to deliver."
The court ruled in a case brought by two Sheffield men who asked that their DNA records be destroyed.
Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was dropped three months later after the two were reconciled. He had no previous convictions.
In a separate case, a 19-year-old named in court only as "S" was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in January 2001 when he was 12, but he was cleared five months later.
The men asked that their fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles be destroyed.
South Yorkshire Police refused, saying the details would be retained "to aid criminal investigation".
The men lost in the House of Lords, which ruled that keeping the information was not illegal under the Criminal Justice and Police Act, and did not breach human rights.
But earlier this year, when the cases came before the Human Rights Court, lawyers for the two men argued that keeping the DNA of innocent citizens left them under a cloud of suspicion.
The judges said decisions on collecting DNA data needed to balance the benefits with "important private-life interests" and should weigh up the age of the defendant, their alleged offence, and whether or not the records should be held indefinitely.
They said: "The protection afforded by Article 8 (right to a private and family life) would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests."
Ms Smith said: "DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European Court of Human Rights' decision."
"The Government mounted a robust defence before the Court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgment."
The ruling does not mean police will be forced to delete the 850,000 records of innocent people - including tens of thousands of children - immediately.
But individuals could challenge the holding of their genetic data in the British courts and puts immense pressure on the Government to amend the rules in coming months.
Chief Constable Chris Sims who speaks on forensics for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said the ruling would have a "profound impact" on policing.
A breakdown of 200,000 database samples from people not charged or convicted found they threw up 8,500 matches to evidence found at crime scenes, he said. The records were linked to more than 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes.
Dr Helen Wallace, of campaign group Genewatch called for clear limits on how long DNA could be kept.
"We obviously welcome this judgment and it is clear that the Government has got it wrong.
"They should never have collected the DNA of innocent people in the first place.
"What we need now is legislation that makes it clear there are limits to how long people's DNA should be kept."
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said the verdict reinforced Conservative attacks on DNA data retention.
He said: "This vindicates all that we have been saying about the Government's wrong-headed approach to this issue, which has caused so much resentment amongst the law-abiding majority and done so much to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system.
"The Home Secretary must now come forward and say what steps she will now take, given that the profiles of more than a million innocent people are currently on the UK's DNA database.
"We would have a parliamentary debate about the database and put it on a statutory basis."
you can have you dna on data base even if you are innocent
or a witness up to now any one on the data base had no legal right to have it removed
Nearly a million innocent people could have their records removed from the national DNA database after a court ruled that holding them breached their human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights severely criticised police powers to take and hold samples from suspects even if they are released or cleared.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was disappointed with the ruling and would consider it carefully before responding.
Human rights groups welcomed the judgment and called for the Government to follow Scotland where police routinely destroy profiles of those either acquitted or not charged.
In a unanimous ruling, the Strasbourg court condemned the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of powers given to police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The ruling could have important implications for fingerprint databases as the judges said holding innocent people's print details could also infringe their rights.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty which helped fund the case, urged ministers to let Parliament debate new database rules.
"This is one of the most strongly-worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights," she said.
"That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British Government has shamefully failed to deliver."
The court ruled in a case brought by two Sheffield men who asked that their DNA records be destroyed.
Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was dropped three months later after the two were reconciled. He had no previous convictions.
In a separate case, a 19-year-old named in court only as "S" was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in January 2001 when he was 12, but he was cleared five months later.
The men asked that their fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles be destroyed.
South Yorkshire Police refused, saying the details would be retained "to aid criminal investigation".
The men lost in the House of Lords, which ruled that keeping the information was not illegal under the Criminal Justice and Police Act, and did not breach human rights.
But earlier this year, when the cases came before the Human Rights Court, lawyers for the two men argued that keeping the DNA of innocent citizens left them under a cloud of suspicion.
The judges said decisions on collecting DNA data needed to balance the benefits with "important private-life interests" and should weigh up the age of the defendant, their alleged offence, and whether or not the records should be held indefinitely.
They said: "The protection afforded by Article 8 (right to a private and family life) would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests."
Ms Smith said: "DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European Court of Human Rights' decision."
"The Government mounted a robust defence before the Court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgment."
The ruling does not mean police will be forced to delete the 850,000 records of innocent people - including tens of thousands of children - immediately.
But individuals could challenge the holding of their genetic data in the British courts and puts immense pressure on the Government to amend the rules in coming months.
Chief Constable Chris Sims who speaks on forensics for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said the ruling would have a "profound impact" on policing.
A breakdown of 200,000 database samples from people not charged or convicted found they threw up 8,500 matches to evidence found at crime scenes, he said. The records were linked to more than 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes.
Dr Helen Wallace, of campaign group Genewatch called for clear limits on how long DNA could be kept.
"We obviously welcome this judgment and it is clear that the Government has got it wrong.
"They should never have collected the DNA of innocent people in the first place.
"What we need now is legislation that makes it clear there are limits to how long people's DNA should be kept."
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said the verdict reinforced Conservative attacks on DNA data retention.
He said: "This vindicates all that we have been saying about the Government's wrong-headed approach to this issue, which has caused so much resentment amongst the law-abiding majority and done so much to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system.
"The Home Secretary must now come forward and say what steps she will now take, given that the profiles of more than a million innocent people are currently on the UK's DNA database.
"We would have a parliamentary debate about the database and put it on a statutory basis."
you can have you dna on data base even if you are innocent
or a witness up to now any one on the data base had no legal right to have it removed
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
You have to remember that some tabloids print scare storie's.
This might help
Operation Black Vote - Destroy DNA samples outcry
If anyone has dna held by the police but never been a suspect, just put it in writing to them. If they don't agree, lodge a formal complaint with The Police Complaints Commission.
This might help
Operation Black Vote - Destroy DNA samples outcry
If anyone has dna held by the police but never been a suspect, just put it in writing to them. If they don't agree, lodge a formal complaint with The Police Complaints Commission.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
DNA database 'breach of rights'
if we have the right to have them destroyed why do you think this case ever happened
in uk law you have not ........but eu say that is wrong
in uk law you have not ........but eu say that is wrong
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
SuzyB;1077449 wrote: But as Lon said I really do believe that it is a good thing, it would help solve serious crimes and for the majority it would make no difference to us if they had our DNA.
With our history of British fit up's be the police (Charles De menezes as a recent one), it can only be good news to any law abiding citizen. At least you won't get fitted up as an Al-Quaeda suspect.
:mad:
With our history of British fit up's be the police (Charles De menezes as a recent one), it can only be good news to any law abiding citizen. At least you won't get fitted up as an Al-Quaeda suspect.
:mad:At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
DNA database 'breach of rights'
oscar;1077452 wrote: With our history of British fit up's be the police (Charles De menezes as a recent one), it can only be good news to any law abiding citizen. At least you won't get fitted up as an Al-Quaeda suspect. :mad:
i totally agree but as a innocent man why should they be able to keep mine but not every ones
:mad:i totally agree but as a innocent man why should they be able to keep mine but not every ones
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
DNA database 'breach of rights'
SuzyB;1077457 wrote: They shouldn't be, ask them in writing and I bet it will be done if not I'd love to see the letter that says they wont.
I think they should make everyone have it done
why do you think there was a court case abo9ut it if we already had that right
I think they should make everyone have it done
why do you think there was a court case abo9ut it if we already had that right
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
DNA database 'breach of rights'
SuzyB;1077467 wrote: Answer above Jess
sue the court ruling was about innocent people havng them kept on record
not some one who is guilty
sue the court ruling was about innocent people havng them kept on record
not some one who is guilty
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
el guapo;1077473 wrote: sue the court ruling was about innocent people havng them kept on record
not some one who is guilty
I must admit, it has benifits and draw backs. I think maybe it should be down to personal choice. If a law abiding citizen doesn't mind their dna on record to rule them out of any crime, they should have a choice. It's the amount of police fit up's in this country that has a worrying element of it. the public nowadays are only too aware of the shananagans our plods get up to.
not some one who is guilty
I must admit, it has benifits and draw backs. I think maybe it should be down to personal choice. If a law abiding citizen doesn't mind their dna on record to rule them out of any crime, they should have a choice. It's the amount of police fit up's in this country that has a worrying element of it. the public nowadays are only too aware of the shananagans our plods get up to.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
DNA database 'breach of rights'
The police have been using this database as an reason to not do real police work. If you believe that it is never wrong get your Google out and just type in "DNA evidence errors" . You will be amazed how inaccurate it is and how open to misuse and mistakes, it is far from the perfect tool that the police and government want us to believe it is. Like all the CCTV cameras we have now--if they prevent and help solve crimes why do the police catch and convict fewer people every year and the crime levels keep rising.
DNA database 'breach of rights'
Lon;1077393 wrote: Breach of rights crap!!! What is the difference between having one's picture on file (couldn't that be a breach of rights?) , their fingerprints and DNA? Tell me how either photos, fingerprints or DNA would be used by anyone, to the detriment of whose prints and DNA is being used.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.
I have been struggling with this one since I heard it in the news, I can see both sides, but reading you post Lon, I would say that I agree with you.
Overall, it provides a greater good; I think that the judges were wrong in their decision.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.
I have been struggling with this one since I heard it in the news, I can see both sides, but reading you post Lon, I would say that I agree with you.
Overall, it provides a greater good; I think that the judges were wrong in their decision.
DNA database 'breach of rights'
Thank you Lon.
[QUOTE]Breach of rights crap!!! What is the difference between having one's picture on file (couldn't that be a breach of rights?) , their fingerprints and DNA? Tell me how either photos, fingerprints or DNA would be used by anyone, to the detriment of whose prints and DNA is being used.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Breach of rights crap!!! What is the difference between having one's picture on file (couldn't that be a breach of rights?) , their fingerprints and DNA? Tell me how either photos, fingerprints or DNA would be used by anyone, to the detriment of whose prints and DNA is being used.
Anyone that has done military service is fingerprinted, many jurisdictions require fingerprinting for a driver's license, same for some employments. Had it been possible to have widespread use of DNA data bases in the past, it would have freed many who were convicted of crimes that they did not commit. I don't see the reverse happening, where an innocent is convicted with misuse of DNA.[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
DNA database 'breach of rights'
It isn't about being on a database it is about not being charged with a crime or being found innocent but STILL being on the database and the government and police REFUSING to remove your details. Having your photo or fingerprints taken is not the same as your employer doesn't keep the photo of every person who has ever applied for a job but never got one. I am all for having a database of convicted felons as most will re-offend but why keep info on innocent people, unless you assume that we are all guilty of something or eventually will be guilty at a future time. If it is that important to politicians and police they should lead by example and have their info and their entire family put on the database first, what will be next--compulsory ID cards for all and volunteers on every street reporting on their neighbours.
DNA database 'breach of rights'
"They" keep getting more and more invasive. Ever wonder what life in a filing cabinet would be like? We are there and that filing cabinet is getting smaller and smaller.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
FUBAR;1077875 wrote: It isn't about being on a database it is about not being charged with a crime or being found innocent but STILL being on the database and the government and police REFUSING to remove your details. Having your photo or fingerprints taken is not the same as your employer doesn't keep the photo of every person who has ever applied for a job but never got one. I am all for having a database of convicted felons as most will re-offend but why keep info on innocent people, unless you assume that we are all guilty of something or eventually will be guilty at a future time. If it is that important to politicians and police they should lead by example and have their info and their entire family put on the database first, what will be next--compulsory ID cards for all and volunteers on every street reporting on their neighbours.
I think you'll find that all senior politicians do have their dna and fingerprints lodged with the police. it's to identify them should a terrorist blow them up or they are in an accident and there is not enough to identify their body.
I think you'll find that all senior politicians do have their dna and fingerprints lodged with the police. it's to identify them should a terrorist blow them up or they are in an accident and there is not enough to identify their body.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
DNA database 'breach of rights'
hoppy;1077877 wrote: "They" keep getting more and more invasive. Ever wonder what life in a filing cabinet would be like? We are there and that filing cabinet is getting smaller and smaller.
One of the problems with this here Hoppy, is that the police and foriegn office do have an unfortunate habit of losing data stored. In the past, we have even had some-one leave vital imfo on a train.
They are very good at gathering it, but a little careless at keeping it. :wah:
One of the problems with this here Hoppy, is that the police and foriegn office do have an unfortunate habit of losing data stored. In the past, we have even had some-one leave vital imfo on a train.
They are very good at gathering it, but a little careless at keeping it. :wah:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon