Loss of Privacy

One of five case studies used to justify the United Kingdom’s DNA retention law was completely fake. The database currently holds the DNA of people, even if they are innocent. The fake case was copied from another case with the name of the individual changed. Officials claim it is just a regrettable administrative error. It is really gross incompetence and an attempt to deceive the public.

Large amounts of personal data belonging to British citizens is accessible from more than 500,000 computer terminals across Europe.

The figure was revealed in a Council of the European Union document examining proposals to establish a new agency, based in France, that would manage much of the 27 EU member states’ shared data. But the sheer number of access points to the Schengen Information System (SIS) – which holds information regarding immigration status, arrest ­warrants, entries on the police national ­computer and a multitude of personal details – has triggered concerns about the security of the data.

Statewatch, a group that monitors civil liberties in Europe, said it was aware of a case in Belgium where personal information extracted from the system by an official was sold to an organised criminal gang.

The rapid expansion of the EU has played a significant part in increasing the size of the network. In 2003, there were 125,000 computer terminals across the EU with access to the system, according to official documents. But following EU enlargement, the number of computer terminals with access to the system increased dramatically.

According to the Council of the European Union “Inter-institutional File”, “the SIS is built around a central database that is networked, via national systems, to more than half a million terminals located within the security services of the member states”. The file goes on to explain that the system “currently contains more than 30m alerts [for wanted persons, stolen vehicles and stolen or lost identity papers and documents]“. While the SIS is credited by its supporters with helping to track wanted criminals and illegal immigrants, there are concerns that the personal data it holds could be invaluable for fraudsters.

There is no way to make data perfectly secure and, by allowing so many access points, the British are right to worry about whose hands this information will wind up in.

Over the past five years, the Lancashire County Council has used their snooping powers over 300 times. Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) powers are supposed to be for tracking terrorists, not for snooping on gardeners or other low-level crimes.

Cleaners who repeatedly failed to show up for work, and a care assistant who claimed too much on travel expenses, were among those caught through surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

A person in Chorley thought to be selling counterfeit goods via eBay, people pursuing false personal injury claims, and a retailer selling furniture not up to fire safety standards were also among those investigated using powers granted under the Act.

Most of the requests that LCC made for phone records under RIPA were to investigate suspected rogue doorstep callers or car traders believed to have sold unroadworthy vehicles.

Sixteen allegations of people selling pornographic videos were also looked into using powers under the Act.

And a bus shelter in Lancaster which had been repeatedly vandalised was kept under surveillance and culprits were arrested as a result.

RIPA was designed specifically for crimes that threaten national security and, while the above allegations may be criminal, they are nowhere near the mandate set out in the Act. RIPA has merely been used to bring more money to local councils instead of performing proper policing. It should be banned from use for local councils and only be used for its intended purpose.

The British government has committed a gross invasion of privacy when they turned their CCTV towards a bedroom. Transport for London manages more than 1500 CCTV cameras and have a live feed of someone else’s bedroom. These cameras are supposed to be focused on the roads in London, so what purpose would a live feed of someone’s bedroom serve?

It would be bad enough if this was simply the view seen by some pathetic, voyeuristic CCTV operator who couldn’t wait to get home to study their collection of magazines. But it was not.

He – or possibly she – pointed a live traffic cam into a couple’s bedroom and, as a result, this view could be seen by anybody on Planet Earth who clicked on the feed from that particular camera at 10.21 on 18th December, 2009. The Tfl website identifies where the house is. One can only hope that, as it will be easy to work out which house this is, the couple are supposed to be in each other’s arms.

Considering this is a second floor window and 180 degrees away from the road, there’s really no reason for the camera to ever be pointed in this direction.

I post the information here to prove the same point the original author did. There must be facts to back up the claim that the CCTV operators are abusing their position. If you cannot provide proof of abuse, then a complaint cannot be registered with the local council or police to stop such actions from occurring again. I have also provided the picture with the personal information blacked out. The original and google map of the location is out there, however, I believe that the above photo provides all the evidence of abuse by the CCTV operator that is necessary.

Fortunately, this time the bed was empty. What if it was your house and your bed and you had no clue that you were being watched when you assumed you were safe inside?

The United Kingdom has begun practicing a policy of arresting innocent people, just so they can add them to their DNA database.  The database, which was supposed to include only those who had been arrested after being suspected of committing a crime, is now growing faster than anyone ever thought it could.

When the DNA database was created, nearly everyone cried, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”  This new policy proves the exact point that people like me have been saying for years.  Even if you have nothing to hide, you should still fear the encroachment of your civil liberties and privacy by government officials.

…the most grotesque and brazen undermining of our freedoms, we now know, is the theft of our very essence….police are routinely arresting innocent people specifically to secure their DNA samples.

Britain now boasts the largest DNA database in the world, with samples logged from 5.6 million people, of whom almost a million are known to be entirely innocent of any offence.

Let me repeat that for you.  One million people are known to be entirely innocent of any offence.

Once you are on that database, it will take a minimum of a several month wait and a fee of £200 for the police to remove your name.

It is said, though the figures are disputed, that up to three- quarters of black men aged 18 to 35 are recorded on the DNA database.

How odd that this blatantly discriminatory statistic does not appear to trigger any sort of challenge under that other great New Labour achievement, the Human Rights Act, which is supposed to guarantee our rights to privacy, private life and equality under the law.

Not really odd.  Black men get the shaft when it comes to crime statistics no matter what country you’re living in.

While some may argue that there are medical benefits to collecting everyone’s DNA, such as to help find cures to diseases, this should only be done on a voluntary basis.  There are many people, who, even if it would save their own life, would not want their most private details in any database.

The deliberate policy to create a comprehensive national DNA database is one of those public policy matters which, like the introduction of ID cards and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is deemed too important to be opened up to any sort of democratic scrutiny. It is policy-by-creep.

Indeed, the real scandal is that the exact implementation of the database has been passed down to unelected police commissioners who make up policy on the hoof about whose DNA should be retained and then whose should be erased.

Given the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has already been in breach of a DNA database containing 4,000 murderers and rapists on the run was lost for an entire year, do we really want innocent people’s DNA placed into the database where it, too, can be lost?  The UK government has already shown that they have a cavalier attitude towards our privacy simply by letting this scheme go forward.  Why would you ever place your trust in them securing your DNA?

It is now clear, what we have to fear is the state itself.  It is methodically [pdf] tracking all of us with CCTV and electronic data retention laws and, now, placing every UK citizen in a database, thus making everyone a criminal.