back to article Sci-tech committee: UK.gov's 27-page biometrics strategy is great... as toilet paper

The UK government's 27-page blueprint to use biometrics "in no way did justice to the fundamental issues involved" in cops' increasing use of the tech, the chair of the Commons science committee has said. Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb made the declaration as his committee confirmed it will be holding a one-off evidence …

  1. John Mangan

    We've got top men working on it.

    Who?

    Top. Men.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On the bright side, all the promised things will happen "soon" rather than "in due course".

    translation from Sir Humphrey-ese: "probably sometime" rather than "never"

  3. Roland6 Silver badge

    >keeping images of presumed innocent people was unlawful.

    Given who we are talking about, I think the database is of people potentially guilty of a yet to be reported crime.

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: >keeping images of presumed innocent people was unlawful.

      In other words, the entire country.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: >keeping images of presumed innocent people was unlawful.

        How did you spot the objective? It's supposed to be secret.

  4. Chris G Silver badge

    Presumed what?

    21 million custody images of people presumed innocent is, I dare say, not how the plod would see those images.

    Their view is more likely ' There's no smoke without fire' to which end I expect they would recommend their colleagues to carry a box of matches. What does the report have to say about the wholesale collection of DNA? One of plods other fishing expeditions.

  5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Gimp

    Antoher case of Home Office policy constipation

    6 years to s**t out this turd.

    What would you call it?

    Are these databases fully searchable?

    How many cases have they been How many were they involved in? involved in solving? How many were they the sole evidence?

    My guess is "lots" (because they're are cheap to use), a few (because they sometimes corroborate an alibi or verify a theory). As for the sole evidence that would be a question. "Almost none" or (disturbingly) "quite high" ?

  6. Loatesy

    They say it costs too much to delete the images. In other words the Rozzers are saving money by breaking the law.

    Qi custard et custiadetetet or whatever?

    "Oh, we keep an eye on ourselves, so we make sure everything's fine and hunkydory? BTW it would appear we've got your photo on file. Why would that be then, sonny jim? We been a naughty boy eh? Well, you must have done something that deserves a spanking otherwise why else would we have your photo on file?"

  7. Loatesy

    They say it costs too much to delete the images. In other words the Rozzers are saving money by breaking the law.

    Quis custodiet custard? (or whatever?)

    "Oh, we keep an eye on ourselves, so we make sure everything's fine and hunkydory? BTW it would appear we've got your photo on file. Why would that be then, Sonny Jim? We been a naughty boy eh? Well, you must have done something that deserves a spanking otherwise why else would we have your photo on file?"

  8. Down not across

    Fox guarding the henhouse

    That included establishing the Law Enforcement Facial Images and New Biometrics Oversight Board, which is chaired by Mike Barton, chief constable of Durham Constabulary, and has reportedly met three times.

    I'm sure a chief constable will be very impartial. Not.

    If the board at least did not consist of the abusers of the information, it might look bit more credible.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019