Petty crimes, 150,000 kids and a million new records

Access to records

The thing is, any statement about the access to information must be viewed as subject to change. Whatever the purpose, whatever the safeguards, a policy decision about changed access to that information can be made later, and all the existing records are subject to that change.

I don't care what the "intention" is of a database, or the "safeguards" put in place around its access. I simply care that the information is being held in the first place. Will insurers have direct access to my medical records? I'm sure that's not the intention. Can it be guaranteed that insurers will never have such access? No.

Amen to that...

"The disturbing and illiberal policy of adding a child's most personal information to a massive government computer system, simply on the grounds of an accusation, must stop immediately."

Amen to that!

Could have been worse...

You should have heard what the badgers were demanding.

Yes we should stop them, but..

Seeing as they are the ones who make the rules, how exactly can we stop them from doing anything they want to?

If that involves taking your DNA for swearing at a badger, you might disaprove, but really, what can you do?

-and don't tell me to vote for someone else next time, because that won't affect DNA being put in the database NOW, and once it's in there, what's the chances no-one. anyone, anywhere, has made a 'backup'?

Plus, voting for just a different bunch of identikit morons to be in power isn't going to change anything, i say we all vote green next time, they can't make it much worse, ad at least they'd have good intentions.

Not convicted, doesn't mean not guilty...

The Crown Prosecution Service, like the Met or any other force has stringent targets and many times will drop a prosecution for no other reason that it is deemed too costly to proceed. There are also cases dropped because of witnesses not coming forward, etc. Youth crime is a massive problem nowadays.. why the big surprise at all the kids on the database.

Gentlemen, start your flamethrowers.

"established beyond reasonable doubt that no offence existed"

It's interesting to note that he uses the phrase "established beyond reasonable doubt that NO OFFENCE EXISTED".

That means that if an offence did exist (e.g. someone got murdered), but you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you didn't do it (e.g. rock solid alibi), they can still retain your DNA as the offence still exists.

Note that this isn't limited to your DNA, but finger prints and records of your arrest tied to details of the crime. Even with your DNA deleted, you're still shit out of luck if you want to join the police, work in the criminal justice system, or do anything that requires an enhanced CRB check.

It's my personal opinion that once an investigation into a crime has ended, or, for those left open for some period after a set period of time (e.g. 1 to 5 years depending on the type of crime), the details of anyone not found guilty of a crime should have their records completely cleared.

Not many people realise that if you're unlucky to be arrested again a second time, the Police can (and often do) take into account your full previous record (including arrests that resulted in no action) when deciding how to proceed (e.g. whether to release, caution, refer to CPS for charge advice etc.).

Disclaimer, I'm an ex UK cop.

Paranoia and general FUD

Sorry El Reg, and Lucy. I'm usually right alongside the viewpoints Reg writers, but this is just baseless paranoia.

Yes, everything is recorded on PNC, significantly more is recorded on local police intelligence databases. Do you know what these sometimes come in useful for? Solving crimes.

I've had first-hand experience of how small, seemingly irrelevant details recorded on police systems have added up to worthy intelligence resulting in arrests and the recovery of stolen goods.

Yes systems like this are open to abuse, but so are all systems storing confidential data. Be afraid of big brother knowing as much as he can about you if you will, I for one will be happier knowing that crimes are being solved and prevented by good intelligence.

Old Saxon saying...

Its better a hundred guilty men escape punishment than 1 inocent be punished in error.

Be had it right a thousand years ago, why is it so hard today.

@Old Saxon Saying...

Of course, the saxons did also favour trial by ordeal, so lets not mention them too often lest the Ministry of Justice get ideas.

Defacing coins isn't illegal any more...

According to the little brass plate attached to the last coin smashing machine I saw, the Coinage Offences act of 1936 was the piece of legislation which prohibited, amongst other things, the defacing of any current coin. This was repealed in its entirety by the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act of 1981.

You earned your money, do what you want with it!

Petty Non-Crimes

Defacing coins, as mentioned, isn't a crime any more. For the record, neither is attempted suicide - that was removed from the statute books by the Suicide Act 1961; although the same act made complicity in another's suicide a crime.

All that said, the trend towards arbitrary storage of personal data - apparently for no more worthy reason than that it's possible - does concern me. My main worry is based on the fact that it just seems to be taken for granted that if it can physically be done, these agencies and organisations have the right to do it. Not only governments, either, but companies: as I understand it (and I'd love to be wrong) the amount of data that firms like Tesco are taking it upon themselves to hold, apparently for no good reason whatsoever, is quite alarming.

And the less said about Bloody Google the better.

Trial By Ordeal

"If that hoodie wearing 14 yo floats he's guilty and we should put his details on the PNC until we think he's a hundred ,if he drowns then its beyond our training and social responsibility to make any effort at all to rescue him"

Where's the "down with the gov" icon?

what's wrong with having a database?

The unusual reaction remarked on is perhaps related to why doctors make bad patients - they want less operations and pills for themselves.

To address the question posed:

1) The database is not representative, of either Brits or criminals

2) The policy for capturing and auditing data is baroque

3) the error rate in a good database might be 90% complete and correct - how does John Smith activate error correction procedures?

4) There is no personal advantage to providing information

5) There is no believable statement on current or future use restrictions - when will the police flog it on to Tesco?

6) the link to identity files is nigh, desired by administrators but less so by politicians

The latest call from Swiss populist politicians is for DNA data from foreigners - skiing holiday anyone?

@A.Lewis

> I've had first-hand experience of how small, seemingly irrelevant details recorded on police systems have added up to worthy intelligence resulting in arrests and the recovery of stolen goods.

And what about Raymond Easton, the guy with Parkinson's Disease who was arrested for burglary because of a False Positive?

It was only the fact that he *had* Parkinson's Disease and thus it was obvious that there was no way in hell he could have traveled 200 miles and climbed through someone's window to steal goods that allowed him to be acquitted.

If he was an ordinary bloke he'd probably have been banged up because "we've got your DNA sunshine, that *proves* you were there!"

Now consider how many false positives are likely to result if *everyone's* DNA is on file.

FUD? I don't think so.

@ A.Lewis

<<I for one will be happier knowing that crimes are being solved and prevented by good intelligence.>>

So, you believe that crimes weren't solved and prevented before DNA testing? I've got news for you - they were. They were even solved and prevented before fingerprinting. Yes, some crimes go unsolved, but they still will. The database might prevent some petty crime, but not spur-of-the-moment or serious crime.

Any database will eventually provide more noise than information. Fingerprints and DNA are left everywhere you go. If samples were taken from every crime scene, the evidence would become more and more circumstantial, because all it shows is that an individual was there, along with many others. The noise issue can be used by a serious criminal who thinks ahead: find a source of random DNA, such as the vacuum cleaner bag of a public place, and scatter it around the crime scene. For better cover, make sure that there is evidence that you were in that public place (easy with CCTV coverage these days). Even if the criminal's DNA can be isolated, there is no DNA evidence against them!

Whoops - I think I hear the helicopters. I may be some time ....