Human rights court rules UK DNA grab illegal

EU as a counter balance...

The EU keep proving itself as a welcomed dose of sanity compared to the UK's over reaching abuse of powers. Fingers crossed the common sense will linger for at least a decade or two...

Who would have thought?

That our very freedom is being protected not by our elected officials but by the House of Lords and the European Court of Human rights.

The irony is not lost on me.

Hah!

Score one for the little guy.

Great news!

Sounds like a victory for common sense and decency. Great stuff.

However, I must admit that there is a part of me that simply doesn't trust our government, or our police force.

We've all seen in recent years how our authoritarian and draconian government have 'turned' our police force against the public they serve. In my mind, and it brings me pain to say it, the police are now 'the enemy of the state', second only to our goverment.

Are the police these days not simply an instrument of government to crack down on it's public, removing free choice and free will? Are they not simply government sanctioned censors? ("You can't say that. You can do that. You can't think that. You can't take that photograph here." etc.) It seems to me they are.

Our government/police (I've concatenated the two words, because I now believe them to be one and the same) have, it seems, quite literally taken leave of thier senses. One local force in Scotland has taken it upon themselves (they presumably see it as their responsibility) to hand out flip-flops to local drunk women out on the town "because they might hurt themselves while walking home without some sensible footware". Meanwhile, your house is getting burgled, while some copper on the high-street is saying "Ooh, you look like a size 5 love, and this colour matches your skirt beautifully!"

And therefore, with a heavy heart, I have to say, that even with this ruling in the European courts, I simply do not trust our police or government to delete this information from their databases. They simply won't do it. It would kill them to do it. What they will probably do, in some self-righteous sense of warped logic, is create a second database to hold the details of those individuals who have had their information 'deleted'. In their minds, these people are not 'innocents'. They are merely people who they 'failed to catch the first time'.

Of course, our governement will now appeal to the European courts, so we haven't heard the last of it. I have to say though, thank god for the european courts, at least, in this particular instance, because you certainly can't rely on our law lords to stick up for their own general public.

Viva la Europe! <--- cor, look at that! Three languages in three words! How european am I?!

"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement."

I wonder how far I would get with this if I failed in defense of an IR35 judgement.

"The money will stay in my bank account whilst I carefully consider the judgement."

Fuck off wacky, and the rest of you. New Year New Gov.

The case was won on a discrimination point

So Wacky's response will be to DNA test everyone and it will be a criminal offence not too allow a DNA sample to be taken.

See no discrimination, just criminals.

Simple (Well in Wacky's mind anyway)

Trés bien

I know it's fashionable to bash the EU and the UK membership thereof, decrying the loss of sovereignty and national freedom blah blah blah....

Equally, however, it must be recognised that sometimes - just sometimes - our elected representatives utterly screw up and we need someone bigger and LESS accountable to rise above petty politics and set us straight. God only knows why the opposition parties didn't.

A 17-member unanimous verdict? That's a pretty clear slap for Nu Stalin^H^H^H^H^H^H Labour.

Scary

Looking in from the outside, I have to say that the British government scares the bejeesus out of me at times. The EU may come up with a lot of pointless rubbish, but they're usually spot on when it comes to human rights.

Well..

... a sensible decision from the European court... and a predictable retort from Smith as the mouth peice of the gov. They really don't give a stuff about our rights at all.

If only I believed that getting rid of this lot and replacing them with the other lot would make one jot of difference :(

And here's how we shall do it...

ALTER TABLE DNAProfile

ADD Deleted BIT

IF DNAProfile.Conviction IS null

Start

SET Deleted = 1

END

And on the store proc...

WHERE Deleted <> 1

Which is great, all appropriate records are 'deleted' but with the handy fail-safe in case anyone deletes an incorrect record.

Top Stuff.

Anon because... well, you saw what happened to Mr Green, right?

@Phil Hare & Reg

Motion seconded - we NEED a Wacqui Jacqui icon!

Backups

Assuming that the admins of the DB are together enough to have some kind of backup strategy, then what are the technical implications of removing the information? I suppose they have to go through the backups and make sure the DNA profiles are deleted from those as well? Does that mean that someone has to go and update all the tape archives in secure off site storage too? How far back do they keep backups for, I wonder?

Mine's the one with the stack of "mislaid" CDs in the pocket.

Patriotism

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

Edward Abbey

In this instance Michael Marper and "S" are true patriots.

I'm very surprised

By the vehemence of the statements of the European court - ' "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" '(copied from news.bbc.co.uk).

With this level of feeling from the Euro court, and given that it was HMG that was defending against this action, so they should have presented all their evidence, I think - and I hope - that our beloved leaders will have their work cut out getting an appeal to go through, but they will no doubt use the years of time that will be created by loathsome lawyers arguing about anything they can to justify millions in expenses, to ensure that the database is vastly bigger than it is now.

As was pointed out on the Radio 4 news today, the proportion of crimes solved by the DNA evidence is dropping fast - down 12% and 16% in consecutive years.

This next sentence is going to stick in my throat - I hope that the Tories get into power next time, they at least have the guts to stand up the specious crap that the Police use to justify their increasing abuse of powers (although with the shenanigans that went on with Mr Green, I think there are a large number of MPs starting to question whether they have become too big for their boots...you never know, leopards may change their spots)

Of course, even if they say that they have deleted the records of the innocent people from the database, how will they prove it? And will we believe them?

This is why we have a House of Lords and the EU...

Don't write them all off just yet. The HoL voted down the 42 day detention and forced the HoC to backtrack. The HoL has its uses, and it would definitely be a shame if it was 'reformed' by NuLabour (especially when that means that they can stack the deck in their favour). Leave the HoL alone, they do have a purpose.

And as much as the EU suffers from over-eagerness and over-regulation more often than not, it does help us as consumers, us as common people, and us as innocents.

This judgment is a huge win for us. Yes, that means that sometimes suspects slip through the net, but FFS - keeping a DNA profile of someone who is clearly not a danger just because 'it's procedure, we have to do it to make any further issues simpler' is not on. I left countries with overbearing regimes because of this... don't make me leave the UK too.

Jaqui Smith - Crypto-fascist

Jaqui Smith is a "clear and present danger" to freedom in this country and should be fired as soon as possible.

You can't treat everybody as a criminal just on the off chance that they do something illegal at some indefinite time in the future. It's a policy based on fear and paranoia.

For the sake of the country, Gordon, grow some balls and fire the woman!

So does this mean

Great news!

This might just be the best thing to come out of Europe since sensible measurements.

Meanwhile, what's your legal position if you were convicted on the basis of DNA evidence that was retained illegally?

@"EU as a counter balance... "

The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.

Think more Council Of Europe.

Reg, can we have a Wackie Jacqui icon please?

No need. She'll be out shortly. Alternatively until the Revolution, we could make do with the one I've used.

stunning likeness....

Award the costs against the House of Lords pension fund

It does seem incredible that the judges in this country fail to protect us from the Nazi tactics of the state. They need to be reminded who pays them.

Waiting

I'm waiting for the last buzzword to appear in context here - Machiavellian. We've had the rest.

We really, really need a Wacky Jacqui icon El Reg, sort it!

I think this is a great move, and i didn't see it coming. The first good thing to come out of Europe in forever. Let's hope the law is water tight and hermeticallyt sealed so there is no way around it!

Thank you again EU

After the police illegally took my fingerprints and DNA some years back for something I was never even charged with, I'll be glad to have some hope of finally having them wiped from their big brother databse.

YES!

This was, apparently, a unanimous verdict by the 17 Euro-beaks, so, hopefully, the chances of El Wacqui and her cohorts overturning this will be slim.

We all know, however, that El Wacqui will never submit to this ruling. The Gov't will just lodge appeal after appeal, wasting taxpayers money in the process, to ensure that the database stays.

On another point, If storing DNA profiles on an Über-Database is deemed "a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life", then that must surely call into question the legality of storing biometric data on the proposed NIR? There is little difference in function between being able to ID someone by their DNA (in the DNA database) and ID them by fingerprint (in the NIR).

Keep banging in the nails. Eventually the lid on the NuLabour coffin will be sealed and we can bury the whole sorry, snooping, bunch of them.

criminals in government

So the government and police have been found to be breaking the law. But they announce they are going to carry on breaking the law while they review the situation. How can that be tolerated?

By the way, the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.

HURAY

Another victory for the paranoid and those that have something to hide.

It'll only get worse

You're crazy if you think this is a good thing. The judgment was based on discrimination, that is, it's possible that people on the DNAR will be discriminated against in favour of those who are not. Next step for HMG: remove all potential for discrimination by putting the whole UK populace on the DNAR...

Not the EU

@John Young - correct!

The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.

It rules on the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Justice is the European Union's court - ruling on EU Law.

I think the confusion of naming is deliberate so the EU mistakenly gets some good press.

Ha ha ha ha

Get it right up ye', Jacqui.

@ Nemo Metis

How about "Jacquiavellian" ?

"...while we carefully consider the judgement"

Yeah right, when has this government *carefully considered* anything ever?

Can we tax it? no? can we make it illegal? no? ah well, we'd best "carefully consider" it then -

la-la-la-while-we're-carefully-considering-it-has-anyone-got-a-copy-of-the-daily-mail-handy-la-la-la...

Oppose the EU

The EU are NOT your friend! The Prum Convention shows what the EU thinks of your privacy rights.

Under the Prum Convention, police across the European Union will have free access to the DNA database as well as fingerprints, and vehicle and driver registrations.

The (non-EU) European Court of Human Rights may be a small restraint on their ambitions.

A new Database?

Will she just create a law abiding citizens DNA database and move details accross when you are sent down!!!

So if I get this right

We MUST have biometric passports because the EU says we must. No excuses. Love to challenge it. Can't.

However, we CANNOT delete data we don't need just because the EU says we must. No way. Love to. Can't.

Wow. Are there evil twins of EVERYONE in NuLab government? (And I don't mean one evil twin one good twin, they're both evil).

Excellent news but...

"Jacqui Smith: Law to remain while judgment 'carefully considered'" in other words: whilst we try to find a way to weasel out of it...

PS Jacquiavellian! I love it!!

@AC

"Next step for HMG: remove all potential for discrimination by putting the whole UK populace on the DNAR."

The only way they will get my DNA is as a swab from my corpse.

re: ECHR != EU

However, this is forgotten when the ECHR rulings is touted as "letting the criminals have all the rights". THEN the difference between the ECHR and the EU are forgotten.

And, oddly, never brought up.

crime free = more rights

"we do not give a flying fuck what plays an invaluable role in fighting crime. Our rights are more important than that" so you think our right to freedom is more important than fighting crime, well lets let all the prisoners out then. our right to live in a safe country is more important than fighting crime (huh? how dose that one work?) have you never had a crime committed against you? if you did, did the police find any finger print or dna evidence? also did you want that guy found? if so, how do you expect that they find the person that committed the crime?

not only would it help crime it would stop all these john and jane doe's bodies appearing because they would be able to be found by dna and their families would be able to have some closure.

if they had a voluntary scheme to collect dna then i would be first in line.

Paris cos she can have some of my dna any day

The British Government are bigger cnuts than my neighbours

It seems they take the same approach to legal bollocks - if the answer's not right, delay and delay and delay.

What they need to do is wake up and smell the coffee; the public perception is not of the good that this can achieve when employed correctly but of the bad feeling the public gets in general about it. Negative press by far outweighs the odd success story.

Some might say that the UK and US governments welcomed 9/11 as the chance to hammer into civil liberties. Frankly, looking at the evidence, I'd agree with them.

Jacquiavellian

They went to war without legal basis, hardly seems like this would give them much pause.

The idea of the Government/police giving up powers... just doesn't seem likely I'm sad to say.

Once they get them, they will fight tool and nail and invent every possible excuse why they need to keep them.

nnocent until proven guilty

I'm sure the NDNADB does provide matches which help solve crimes and some of those will be very nasty crimes such as serial rapists.

But Wacky Jacqui needs to realise that just because the police have arrested you for something which they have then decided NOT to charge you with DOES NOT mean you are a latent criminal. The "Oh you've done something almost criminal once... so you'll go out and do something really nasty in the future and this way we've got you" is the sort of thing that Stalin or Hitler would have been proud of.

Yes I know that most criminals are repeat offenders but just because you've done something criminal once does not mean you'll do something criminal again.

Twanks.

I live in the People's Republic of Sarth Yaarkshire [sic] and would like to offer the following to everyone who made this story possible.

It's nice to know that while in many areas of life (such as manners, education, a job market, and so on) the entire area lags behind the rest of the UK by as much as 50 years, our Police Force lead the country in the kind of brainless stupidity we've come to associate with everything they do: There are even some who say this one enormous effort of will alone could put them in the running for first prize at the Sheffield Convention of Fuckwits to be held later this year. I'm currently sat in Leeds (it's the only place round here that has decent jobs), but from my office I can hear the cheering gales of laughter and scorn echoing from the seven hills of my home, and see the bright red glow as 10,000 blushing constables light the daytime sky.

So, SYPF, from me, to you - my most heartfelt thanks and gratitude:

Thanks.

You twats.

Well, someone has to say it...

I, for one, welcome our European overlords.

@The case was won on a discrimination point

No it Wasn't!

[quote]

In its ruling, the Grand Chamber said retention of innocent people's DNA profile was a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 states: "Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." It said it was NOT necessary to consider Marper and "S'" complaint under Article 14, which prohibits discrimination.

[/quote]

Common Sence

@ crime free = more rights

So why are you posting "Anonymous Coward " then? Something to hide? Care to post your bank account a la Clarkston?

This is a great day... After reading into the story some more, "S" was 11 years of age at the time. WTF DNAing an 11 year old... what ever happened to being a minor? Next it'll be arrested for chalking on a public path... Oops sorry that IS illegal already... To$$ers.

"Go" coz thats what we want Nu Labour to do. The sooner the better. Can they dig thier own grave any faster? I certainly hope so!

lettres de cachet

removing the DNA would be a good start, but have a good look at the other crap the Police store. If you thought the PNC was inaccurate, the local Police's intelligence databases are up there with Jeffrey Archers memoirs as records of truth. As the Police are not accountable to anyone but their own Chief Constables who's going to make them delete the records?

PITO are spineless and the Information Commissionaire is just as bad.

Now it seems to be any record made by a policeman are eventually to be used as lettres de cachet

Mines the one being searched, again, and again

Two fingers to Jacqui

<nelson>Ha ha!</nelson>

Thank fook for the EU

Jacqui Smith is a power mad psychopath and should be sectioned.

@ bobbles31

"The only way they will get my DNA is as a swab from my corpse."

I'm sure that can be arranged. Is next Friday convenient for you?

Jacquiavellian

I like it. I like it as much as twatdangle.

@ OG

As a matter of fact, I do have something to hide. In fact, I have a lot of things I want to hide.

I am British, and one of the core values of Britishness is the maintenance of a strong distinction between "one's own business" and "other people's business". And nothing *I* do is any of *your* business unless *I* make it so.

RE: crime free = more rights

"if they had a voluntary scheme to collect dna then i would be first in line."

"By ___Anonymous Coward___"

So you want the police to have your DNA, but you don't even have the stones to use a pseudonym on the internet ? How does that work then ?

You could say it's "Jacquiavellian" *

And BTW, the problem of the "Jane Doe" corpses you seem to believe are littering the UK could more easily and cheaply be solved by people sewing name labels into their pants.

* Nice one AJ Stiles, that word is now part of my vocabulary for ever, and will remain so even after the (hopefully imminent) departure of the current car crash of a Home Secretary.

crime free = more rights

i post here as ac cos i know you will tare me to shreds and you have.

"Freudian slip?" NOPE typo.

"Doesn't a body have to appear in order to be found" i was talking about john and jane does because they wouldn't be a doe if you could get identification for them they would be a Darren Miller or Kerry Hunter or whatever. and the techniques you talk about means that you need a sample of the missing pirson's dna in a database (invasion on privacy) or a sample of relatives dna to compare it to (invasion on privacy and a lot of work)

and tux cos he can also have my dna anytime

Quelle Horror!

Suddenly I am reminded of the reg story "Government data review grants more data sharing power"*

"The response calls for primary legislation to provide the Secretary of State with a power by Order to remove or modify any legal barrier to data sharing by "repealing or amending other primary legislation, changing any other rule of law, creating a new power to share information where that power is currently absent".

So there's her emergency legislation. Bye Bye Human Rights Act, hello stasi Britain. (Of course, she's unlikely to be in office long enough to get it through, thank christ)

* http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/data_review_more_powers/

Feeling revolutionary....

Having come to the conclusion a long time ago that our politicians & civil servants are a collection talentless, unimaginative old farts who are so collectively incompetent that they couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel, I have decided to vote in the next general election for the first time ever.... for these guys:

http://lpuk.org/

Jacqui-thought once again prevails

Everyone with reasonable intelligence is always prepared to entertain the notion "I am wrong." Unfortunately, in the face of indisputable evidence that her plans violate human rights, Ms. Smith clings to her demonstrable error.

Someone needs to ask Ms. Smith the question, is it better for an innocent man to be punished or a guilty man to escape punishment? Her actions make it clear that as far as she's concerned, punishment of the innocent is a non-issue. Or maybe she takes the truly Bolshevist p.o.v. that no one is totally innocent, and therefore all punishments are deserved, even if not for the reasons stated.

Here in British Columbia, we used to have a populist right-wing government headed by one W.A.C. Bennett. He was widely despised in his day (now over 35 years past), but he had one shining virtue: whenever there was an outcry over some ill-conceived scheme, he would "take a second look" at the proposal. And, indeed, would cancel or revise plans accordingly.

He was no saint. He was as crooked as the day is long. But I'm sure I'm not the only person who yearns for similar behavior on the part of modern politicians.

the police

have to delete dna records of innocent people.

i mean, it's not like they can choose which laws to they're going to obey.

hurrah

swivel on that jaqui you twat

Sauce for the goose

If Jaqui Smith and apparently the police do not have to obey the law, do they expect anyone else to? Complience with the ECHR is suddenly optional?

I shall seriously consider her actions regarding this verdict before deciding which if any law passed by NuLabour applies to me.

Well I figure it's only a matter of time before they get me for something so I might as well make the decision about what I go down for. A few more years and there will be one blanket law under the counter terrorism act for nearly everything.

Double whammy for Whacky Jacky

Whilst our resident ministerial loon is "considering the judgement" my letter is already winging its way to the chief constable of Kent to get my details removed with the caveat that if he delays whilst wacky looks for a loophole I will sue for damages.

One other thing overlooked is the use of the DNA database in commercial projects. Now that its deemed a breach of human rights to keep it where does that leave the database with its decision to allow access to DNA data for commercial gain.

I think I might send out some invoices to the companies involved for use of my DNA, this could turn into a nice little earner!

Paris, even she will get the idea faster than wacky jacky would!

"The only way they will get my DNA is as a swab from my corpse."

@bobbles31

Er, how about they decide to go for a WBS (Whole Body Sample), while you're still alive? That means they don't even have to bother arresting you, let alone convicting you ...

Is there a maximum size for DNA samples that they're allowed to take? I hope so.

fnord

Paris, because I bet she's got quite a few DNA samples, and they're not in her database.

@nemo

We really, really need a Wacky Jacqui icon El Reg, sort it!

Yes, something along the order of Mephitis mephitis out to just do it...

Canadian Laws are still marginally better...

so I think all you intelligent and educated folk should move over here. Consider it an invitation.

I know economy is in the shitter but that seems to be the same everywhere right now. So come on over.

Black helicoper because it just feels right when reading about all the abuse of power in England.

If I had the cash...

I'd have been off to Europe ages ago. Say what you like about Europe, but I know who I'd prefer was in charge.

fix it before asking for more

As pointed out by some of the thoughtful press, one way to protect from random identity capture would be to take everyone's DNA. This decision would be political, and has pros as well as cons.

The administrative responsibility to keep the data correct, current and complete lies with the owners (the police?). Since they don't allow changes, corrections, complaints or even viewing rights, they do an abominable job at present..That is not a good basis for arguing to globalise.

Is the pause to see if they are able to implement suitable policies to manage correction processes?

@Lee: Unless

As far as society and our laws are concerned I remain innocent if you have no evidence of guilt.

If it were "until proven" then you have "well, he obviously DID it, they just couldn't find any evidence" as per "paedo-scare" that some people have had their lives RUINED because people thought they were guilty despite there being no evidence because they are just innocent until the police find the proof and THEN they're guilty, as we knew all along...

UNLESS.

PS It doesn't matter if the person DID commit the crime. If there's no proof, they are innocent. Why? Because

a) you don't know anything to show guilt

b) so many people are accused and so many of them are really innocent but there is no way of getting evidence that by saying "until" puts the innocent under the cloud that some "evidence" could be found (see the July bomber CCTV footage that is obviously spliced and therefore created evidence). And putting the innocent under that threat is unfair.

@Lee: Unless

As far as society and our laws are concerned I remain innocent if you have no evidence of guilt.

If it were "until proven" then you have "well, he obviously DID it, they just couldn't find any evidence" as per "paedo-scare" that some people have had their lives RUINED because people thought they were guilty despite there being no evidence because they are just innocent until the police find the proof and THEN they're guilty, as we knew all along...

UNLESS.