Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has a piece in the Telegraph on the proposed retention of DNA of those charged but not found guilty of crimes. Interestingly she points out that a disproportionate number of those whose DNA has been recorded are young, black men, commenting that it was only as a result of European human rights judges "who could remember when ethnic profiling meant something more sinister " that the government modified their policy.
She also mentions 'privacy' as a reason against such DNA retention. But I'm still uncertain as to why this is a matter of privacy. What private information can be derived from the data in question? Can intimate health issues be revealed for example? If this was possible then I think the case against retention would be water tight - but I've not seen anyone make this sort of argument.
Another scenario: perhaps the worry is that if someone with bad intentions got ahold of someone's DNA information they would then be able to track whether they had been in particular places, say (because traces of hair left behind could be tested) i.e. that people with bad intentions could use this info in the same way as the police do. Is this what people have in mind? Is this a significant risk?
Friday, May 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's important to remember that it's not always about current known possible uses of data, but also unknown future uses of data that individuals should be concerned about.
ReplyDeleteWhile it would be a little absurd to posit exactly what these are, an illustration might be the use of DNA to expose genetic emotional and cognitive traits. These might be used to improve interrogation outcomes or predict propensity to commit crimes.
This needn't be an argument against holding this data now, but quite possibly for legislation which requires police held data be destroyed after a certain term or under certain circumstances.
More here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/privacy_in_the.html
Surely you must be kidding. Of course, DNA can and will be used for health and psychological (beit pseudo-scientific) profiling, among many other possible uses. While this is a legitimate concern, enough to impose strong safeguards on DNA collection and retention, the worst to come is the rapidly increasing feasability of DNA evidence planting. That's right, DNA collection and retention may end up making an excellent case for the inadmissibility of DNA evidence in court. That is, if the concept of the rule of law and civil liberties still mean anything at all in this brave new world.
ReplyDeleteJohn's definition of privacy seems not to extend very far. When did the right not to be identified by the state or its agents, should that be you wish, fail to be an issue of privacy? Is this too ultimate a definition of privacy for these times?
ReplyDelete