Simon Howarth (WSL) on 26 July 2004 at 09:42 stated:-
> Firstly I will state that I have no problem with my DNA
> profile being held
> responsibly by the police on an indefinite basis. I do not
> plan to commit a
> crime, let alone one where my DNA may be used as evidence,
> but I am happy
> that should I ever be a suspect my DNA profile can be
> immediately checked
> without the need to cause me inconvenience, and my innocence
> so far as the
> DNA is concerned "proven". It also pleases me that the perp's
> DNA can be
> checked and they be swiftly dealt with.
The use of photographs and fingerprints probably went through just the same
sort of debates originally.
Reverting to DP compliance, the difficulties present when looking at the
situation appear to be mainly compliance with principles three, five, six,
seven and possibly eight.
Principle one fairness issues could enter into things at the collection
stage, but the legal requirements clearly exist, and so Principle one is
met. With the legislation allowing forcible collection, and controls being
in place with the Custody Officer (to uphold the data subjects rights), and
the defence solicitor also doing the same, there appear to be some
protections for any detained person. If the detained person were to be
photographed, fingerprinted and DNA sampled prior to being refused charge,
or being later found not guilty of something like drink driving or being
involved in a brawl, their defence solicitor would uphold their rights,
provided the innocent data subject were aware of the issues and willing to
raise any concerns. Photographs and fingerprints could originally at some
stage be destroyed, and DNA would be retained.
I guess national ID will remove the photographic anomalous retention
periods, and fingerprints could quite possibly become a historical anomaly
as the use of DNA grows.
[log in to unmask] on 26 July 2004 at 09:32 observed:-
> The other problem is that the more DNA profiles are stored,
> the more chance
> there is of finding out that they are not as "unique" as the
> scientists would
> have us believe. The number of "matching points" on
> fingerprints has had to be
> increased to ensure that difference levels are maitained.
> Even so, neither
> system is totally foolproof.
Yes, some logical synergy between different scientific disciplines exists
here. Principle two compliance would probably be met by the use of the
research exemption. The only difficulty I would perceive in that is the
longer term Principle two compliance and security decisions and
determinations. I suppose, like fluoride, stronger bones and teeth are
better for chewing as one grows.
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
