The largest DNA database not protected by any privacy law, that is the FBI DNA database of over 6.7 million profiles is in the throes of a new spurt of growth. Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.
I wonder what next?
The federal government is quietly working on a controversial plan to collect biometric information from visitors to Canada, immigration department officials revealed yesterday.
“The idea will be that we will take biometrics from people who are coming temporarily to Canada and need a visitor’s visa — temporary workers, students and visitors,” Claudette Deschenes, assistant deputy minister in the immigration department told members of Parliament. “Those who don’t need a visitor’s visa to enter Canada will be taken at the port of entry.”
Following in the footsteps of the U.S. border controls…. fun. I wonder what they are really going to use it for…and more importantly I wonder what privacy laws exist in Canada that will protect this biometric data? Read more on Toronto Sun.
The Department of Motor Vehicles recently proposed a $63 million contract with a company that uses facial-recognition software, which can detect whether a person photographed for a new driver’s license already has a license. The software allows the DMV to match a photograph with the entire DMV database of driver’s license pictures. This risk identified by the privacy group is of ‘mission creep’, that is this technology being used to identify persons in other situations, such as in a crowd.
This move has been blocked. Hence the DMV’s request to fast-track a new technology that the agency is seeking to deter identity theft, . The DMV sought permission from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the contract as early as this week, without the scrutiny of public hearings. This is a victory for privacy-rights groups as this proposal will now have to undergo a public hearing.
Did you know that in December 2008 the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it is illegal for the government to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints belonging to two men never convicted of any crime. Jude Umeh made a posting on his blog about the “Virtual Shadows” book launch which he attended, which gave me the link for this ruling. So thanks Jude 🙂
The landmark decision could mean the more than 570,000 DNA profiles in the National DNA Database belonging to innocent individuals will have to be deleted. Police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland currently have powers to take DNA and fingerprints from everyone they arrest regardless of the seriousness of their crime, or if they are prosecuted. This includes minors. This ruling is well overdue!
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.
The 17 judges wrote: “The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed.”
There is some strange legislation changes happening in the U.K. It is an amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998.
Taken from computer weekly: “…an ‘information sharing order’ to share personal information. This seems to circumvent whatever purpose the information was gathered for; for example, child protection data could be shared with police, benefits officials or your local school. (……) Furthermore, the sharing process can include publishing that personal information.”
Just to give an example:
Part 8 — Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)
50A Power to enable information sharing
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, a designated authority may by order (an “information-sharing order”) enable any person to share information which consists of or includes personal data.
…
(3) For the purposes of this Part a person shares information if the person–
(a) discloses the information by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making it available, or
(b) consults or uses the information for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was obtained.
This means “mission-creep” is acknowledged as ok… not good. This provides an opening for the further sharing of any personal information that we have originally shared for a specific purpose, including our DNA data. After this change, there will be another amendment in a few years time, and bingo before we know it the DNA data of our children is stored and used for all sorts of unethical practices. Although of course, today we see them as so, in 20 years time, they will probably be accepted as normal.
Read more from computer weekly.
Thanks to ARCH blog for highlighting.