Food & Drink1 min ago
Useful Tool Or Breach Of Human Rights?
18 Answers
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is both. It is definitely a useful tool.
But it is also a breach of someones privacy, data and identity.
By all means take convicted people’s fingerprints, DNA, blood type or retina scans. That information may be useful in detecting future crimes.
Innocent people should not be subject to the same invasions. If the police took my fingerprints or DNA without my knowledge, I would not like itas I don’t intend to commit any crimes.
Just because surveillance cameras can secretly take a digital map of our faces without consent or even knowledge is wrong.
And I do not trust the Police with my data. They are notorious at losing it, giving it away or generally misusing it.
But it is also a breach of someones privacy, data and identity.
By all means take convicted people’s fingerprints, DNA, blood type or retina scans. That information may be useful in detecting future crimes.
Innocent people should not be subject to the same invasions. If the police took my fingerprints or DNA without my knowledge, I would not like itas I don’t intend to commit any crimes.
Just because surveillance cameras can secretly take a digital map of our faces without consent or even knowledge is wrong.
And I do not trust the Police with my data. They are notorious at losing it, giving it away or generally misusing it.
I am guessing we will quickly get the - “If you have got nothing to hide argument” .
But by law we have rights to privacy, and against intrusion. Would the same people who say nothing to hide, like to make their tax returns public, their credit data, their car registration data, their spent convictions?
But by law we have rights to privacy, and against intrusion. Would the same people who say nothing to hide, like to make their tax returns public, their credit data, their car registration data, their spent convictions?
Spicerack @ 09;51; Of course trials are need to ascertain if something works or not. But i would have thought the system would have been a little further advanced before trying it out on the public. I have no qualms about it's eventual implementation once it is proven. I do wonder, though, just how much one would have to disguise themselves - coloured contacts, thick rimmed glasses, bit of facial hair - to fool the system?
I can go out with my camera and take pictures and film. When out in the public arena there is (I think) no intrinsic right to privacy where that is concerned.
It is what you do with it afterwards that’s the sticking point and of course I’m not an official body so to speak.
In all honesty I don’t have a problem with the concept as such. My reservations would be in the police ability to use the information lawfully and the accuracy of the technology. Although to be fair it will get better over time. What are the checks and balances to ensure that when it is inaccurate that the ‘wrong’ person isn’t unduly disadvantaged?
But there are strict rules and guidelines on the use of DNA and fingerprints so as long as it is in line with that then I think they should be able to use it.
It is what you do with it afterwards that’s the sticking point and of course I’m not an official body so to speak.
In all honesty I don’t have a problem with the concept as such. My reservations would be in the police ability to use the information lawfully and the accuracy of the technology. Although to be fair it will get better over time. What are the checks and balances to ensure that when it is inaccurate that the ‘wrong’ person isn’t unduly disadvantaged?
But there are strict rules and guidelines on the use of DNA and fingerprints so as long as it is in line with that then I think they should be able to use it.
// "no-one seems to object" . Probably because they know it's pointless. It's tolerated, it's not right.//
the fact that people on AB were discussing brexit endlessly does NOT mean people were silent
92% of complaints about CCTV to the ICO were about overlooking CCTV, and so he reacted by ..... saying it wasnt such a bad thing in itself
you have the six data principles that I think people have mostly quoted, fair processing and only used for the purpose etc....
I didnty realise it was so inefficient
the fact that people on AB were discussing brexit endlessly does NOT mean people were silent
92% of complaints about CCTV to the ICO were about overlooking CCTV, and so he reacted by ..... saying it wasnt such a bad thing in itself
you have the six data principles that I think people have mostly quoted, fair processing and only used for the purpose etc....
I didnty realise it was so inefficient
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.