Should The Authorities Be Storing Dna/fingerprints/photos Of The Innocent?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31105678
I think they are still holding on to fingerprint/DNA data despite being told it had to be deleted a couple of years ago. Is this the latest step toward a totalitarian state? OK how long before someone says the usual drivel on these types of questions?

[woofgang]

TTT the article is only about photographs. I agree that this is not good, but why are you tagging on the fingerprint and DNA issue?

[jackthehat]

Which drivel is the usual?

[woofgang]

I like to think that my drivel is all new and unusual.

[ToraToraTora]

fingerprints and DNA are part of the same issue woofgang, the storing of data from innocent people. The state should not arbitrarily store this information about its citizens.

JTH, you'll know when it happens.

[ToraToraTora]

.....and the article does mention DNA/fingerprints.

[jim360]

"But if you don't have anything to hide..."

[frugalfred]

My immediate reaction was similar to that of TTT; then I recalled that when I renewed my driving licence (DVLA) the latter contacted the Passport Office for a copy of my photograph - with my consent. So obviously the PO has a database of photographs of all passport holders. Is the Data Protection Act relevant here?

[anotheoldgit]

ToraToraTora

/// OK how long before someone says the usual drivel on these types of questions? ///

Well that certainly puts a stop to anyone who happens to possess an opposite opinion on this, in case they are criticised for stating the usual drivel.

[ToraToraTora]

that's the one jim!

[frugalfred]

Do the police have access to the Passport Office database?

[jno]

sounds like you pretty much trolled your own question even before you pressed Submit...

[ToraToraTora]

"Well that certainly puts a stop to anyone who happens to possess an opposite opinion on this, in case they are criticised for stating the usual drivel. " - Not at all AOG, there are many that think the state should hold this sort of data, they are entitled to hold that view but if it is on the basis of NTHNTF then it has not been thought through and becomes drivel in my own opinion.

[youngmafbog]

If they are holding on to photo's you can bet your bottom dollar DNA is kept.

If they want to do this then fine, but lets have it in the open and laws specifically to set the boundaries.

[jackthehat]

I must admit to being a little split on the issue.

On the one hand there are good reasons for holding such databases, but on the other, I worry about who would have access to them and how the information would be used.

[woofgang]

the only reference that I could find in the article.
"Mr Ramsay said facial recognition could soon become even more important than DNA or fingerprints for the police."

[jim360]

It's been suggested that Tesco knows more about you than the police do. I can't say that an authority dedicated to catching criminals, but to an extent publicly accountable, holding onto data of the innocent scares me all that much. It's possible to create and enforce safeguards that among other things might give a person some level of control over his own data. At any rate I'd be more worried about incompetence than some form of conspiracy, fabricating evidence to make me, or any other innocent man, look guilty for the sake of it.

By contrast, that Google by now probably knows a fair few of my deeper secrets is rather a lot more scary. No public accountability, not exactly much I can do about it. Although, that said, it's still not particularly frightening.

[Gromit]

What I cannot figure out is why they are spending considerable time and money cateloguing innocent people. Surely their limited resources should be directed at keeping tabs on those who have been successfully prosecuted.
It seems like a huge waste of effort and manpower.

[anotheoldgit]

Interesting reading on the subject.

https://nthntf.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear-2/

[jim360]

I suppose the counterargument to my own point is that the only way to make such a database really successful is if it were mandatory. Otherwise there would be some people refusing to have the data stored, no doubt some of which indeed have something to hide. But you can't really draw that conclusion because those who don't, but object for more honest reasons, should hardly be forced to do something against their will.

I can't say I object in principle to the idea, but in practice it seems rather unlikely to be all that useful unless it were forced.

[youngmafbog]

I would not have thought that it is a great effort Gromit. The photo's are already in a database so already catalogued. All they need to do is scan the photo into another recognition database with a link reference to the original database. All could be done easily programatically. You should know that!

Why would they want to do it? Well probably for those difficult crimes that are committed by someone not previously know to plod.