UK rewinds DNA database

THE UK HOME SECRETARY said today that people could be removed from the National DNA Database, promising to roll back the law that has, since 2004, allowed the police to take DNA samples of anyone they arrest and keep them indefinitely, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

The government will immediately erase the DNA records of children under 10 years old. It would consult further on removing DNA taken from older children, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced at an IT industry conference today. And it would begin working out where to draw the line between those people whose DNA should be retained indefinitely just in case they commit a crime in the future, and those people who would be left free of automated suspicion.

The government will also consider restraining the powers of councils to snoop on people suspected of committing petty crimes like letting their dogs crap on the pavement. There would be a public consultation on where the balance should lie between the needs of security and liberty. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which controls councils' use of surveillance, would be reviewed.

Smith said she was addressing "one of the most pressing questions we face as a modern society". That was, "How we secure our rights and liberties as individuals, at the same time as ensuring the wider protection of all in our society against terrorism, crime and disorder."

But Smith's U-turn on DNA policy was forced by the European Court of Human Rights, which ordered the UK a fortnight ago to remove innocent people from the DNA database. The UK was getting punch-drunk on penal technology and needed to stop and think about the consequences, said the court. Smith has laid plans for the UK to do just that, announcing that there would be a consultation and white paper on DNA policy next year.

"For the public to have confidence that we will protect them and protect their rights, it is our responsibility as a government to ensure that these standards apply even as technology evolves," she said.

And so the DNA review will consider precisely who can be taken off the DNA database and who can't. The rules had to be flexible and fair, treating each person differently according to their circumstances, she said. People might be "stepped down" from the police DNA database at a speed appropriate to the severity of their offence.

But Smith stood her ground where it had not been challenged by a higher authority. She said police would be pressed to take DNA samples from people in prison who had not been swabbed before. Police would be encouraged to make greater use of privately-owed CCTV cameras, while CCTV policy would remain unquestioned.

Tough nut
She also spelled out where she thought surveillance technology should be reinforced. We should, on the one hand, allow police to keep up with technological change so that they can catch hi-tech criminals. "New technology presents opportunity gaps for criminals as well – a set of early adopters if ever there was one – always on the look-out for new ways to exploit weaknesses."

Since criminals used the internet and telephones, 95 per cent of serious criminal prosecutions were assembled with the help of evidence that certain communications took place. So these powers needed to be beefed up.

On the other hand, councils were justified in using surveillance technology to control non-criminal behaviour, she said. CCTV should be used to control nuisance neighbours and yobs, she said. It could also catch fly-tippers and dodgy traders. Nurseries should even have webcams so parents can keep an eye on carers.

But UK authorities shouldn't get carried away with their surveillance powers, she said: "I don't want to see them being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day, for dog fouling offences, or to check whether paper boys are carrying sacks that are too heavy."

The "dust-bin Stasi" and other excessively intrusive authorities gave the responsible holders of power a bad name, she said.

Waxing the civil libs a bit
So the UK had to work out where the balance was between security and liberty, said Smith. Safeguards and, "where appropriate", independent oversight must be put in place. We should be "as transparent as possible". And we must ask whether "surveillance powers... are kept in proportion to the damage and the threat they are seeking to prevent". Does our snooping pass the "common-sense" test, she asked?

Having said a fortnight ago that she would have to have a think about the ECHR ruling, it sounds like Smith has had some sort of common sense epiphany. She would have lost a showdown over innocent people's DNA with the ECHR and would have risked more, what with loons in security circles frothing at the mouth over the restrictions human rights law puts on their powers to watch people closely. And since the government had already lost its battle to keep terrorist suspects in jail for 42 days without charge, the consequences might have been even more severe.

No, bovver boy Bush's demise has let off some pressure. And human rights law (something more precious than common sense - it was common sense that got us into this mess in the first place) has proved that society can confine the technology juggernaut to designated roads. µ