Police flog DNA DBase

#1
A report in today's telegraph reveals that DNA DBase records have been sold to the private sector.

Although the authorities assure us that no personal identities were revealed to these companies it seems the goalposts have yet again been moved. From what was a DBase purportedly set up to fight crime (and which holds details of persons not even convicted of a crime) we have now moved to a position where the police can sell data to private companies.

More worrying is that this information had to be obtained under the FOI by an MP. Why did a member of a body charged with scrutiny and oversight have to submit a FOI to gain access to information that should be routinely available, particularly as it is an issue of national importance. Talk about the death of democracy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...rom-DNA-database-passed-to-private-firms.html
 
#2
And we are surprised at this...the police must of course turn a profit how else is public service to serve there master

Liabour watching for your every need...
 
#4
Biscuits_AB said:
It's 'owned' by the Home Office, not The Police.
Biscuits,

Perhaps, but overseen by the NPIA, itself part of the Police, which presumably collects the fees for the sale of this info - hence the title of this thread. I stand by to be corrected, however.



http://www.npia.police.uk/
 
#6
Hate to piss on the outrage bandwagon, but this is probably the biggest DNA database in the country. Where else do you expect researchers to go - or are you suggesting that any statistically based research carried out on DNA should be disallowed?

Given that only half, well 25 out of 45, applications were approved suggests to me that that they could be treating this data appropriately.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#7
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
Biscuits_AB said:
It's 'owned' by the Home Office, not The Police.
Biscuits,

Perhaps, but overseen by the NPIA, itself part of the Police, which presumably collects the fees for the sale of this info - hence the title of this thread. I stand by to be corrected, however.



http://www.npia.police.uk/
Isn't their head honcho a civvy? (.e. not a police officer)
 
#9
Along with those who say only the guilty have anything to fear being DNA databased 'Skicarver'.

Yes DNA is a great tool in solving and gaining convictions but as with many other things has the ability to be subverted.

Insurance companies are just itching to have DNA included as part of getting insurance for life or health, and we all know how Insurance companies like to play fair. :roll:

regardless of this being sold by the police directly or the home office that is is being sold is wrong.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#10
I'm not disagreeing with you. It was only a matter of time before this sort of activity happened anyway.

PS. It's not that great a tool either.
 
#11
PassingBells said:
Hate to urine on the outrage bandwagon, but this is probably the biggest DNA database in the country. Where else do you expect researchers to go - or are you suggesting that any statistically based research carried out on DNA should be disallowed?

Given that only half, well 25 out of 45, applications were approved suggests to me that that they could be treating this data appropriately.
PB,

Yes. Because it's only a matter of time before statistically-based research migrates into non-statistically-based areas.

Perhaps.
 
#13
PassingBells said:
Hate to urine on the outrage bandwagon, but this is probably the biggest DNA database in the country. Where else do you expect researchers to go - or are you suggesting that any statistically based research carried out on DNA should be disallowed?

Given that only half, well 25 out of 45, applications were approved suggests to me that that they could be treating this data appropriately.
i agree that research with anounymous data can be appropriate but...

Is it right too allow any commercial access, NPIA may have control at this time but how long before they are made and executive agency, etc etc we all know where that path tends too lead.


That a MP had to use FOI act is an indication that once again liabour are on the path flogging stuff with there usual gay abandon.
 
#14
As your local council is already selling your personnal details to all and sundry,this was the next step?
I would be outraged,but it is too hot,and I can't be arrsed.
 
#16
Cpl_Clot said:
Hands-up those of you who actually read the article (and not just the headline)?
CC,

I assume that you believe some key point within the article contradicts the headline. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out?
 
#17
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
CC,

I assume that you believe some key point within the article contradicts the headline. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out?
Of course there's nothing to contradict the headline, not even the British Press has failed to learn that lesson!

However, the article makes it plain that the vast majority of these releases were to the FSS (until it was privatised a Home Office institute and one that primarily does forensic analysis for the police).

How exactly would the FSS do analysis for the police without access?

Of the other occasions, the two companies were given "blind data."

That means it has no identification to link it to a donor. It was "annonymised" prior to being made available for the purposes of constructing systems to analyse samples.

It would be like you and me being given every bar-code in the local supermarket to test a bar-code reader but without knowing what the products are.

No raw DNA samples were used.

In one case they were allowed access to the full database to run their new programme. All that would do is show a match (if it worked). It doesn't throw-up a name and address.

As for the "selling" by the police! Do the sums. The article tells how many times access by these companies was made, at £30 to £50 per go that doesn't seem like big money to me (it is a fee to access the supplied data, not for each data entry).

The only real question in this report is why such information required a FOIA application.

Looking at the article, the answer is plain: the good old media will whip-up anything to sell their crap! On that basis I can at least understand why they didn't shout this from the roof-tops. :roll:
 
#18
I think some people are confusing Police with Home office!
 
#19
Cpl_Clot said:
The only real question in this report is why such information required a FOIA application.

Looking at the article, the answer is plain: the good old media will whip-up anything to sell their crap! On that basis I can at least understand why they didn't shout this from the roof-tops. :roll:
Actually CC there are at least 3 pertinent issues that fall out of this particular issue:

Firstly, the lack of scrutiny and debate by Parliament with the consequence that decisions are not reported in Hansard.

Secondly, the sale of data to private companies, particularly where the necessary cleansing of personal data cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, the controls placed on these companies so as not to allow them to further sell on the data.

Thirdly, the tired old mantra rolled out yet again that all this is necessary to defeat crime - time to find another catchphrase I'm afraid.
 
#20
I feel soiled. I've just read an article by Bob Geldorf that I agree with.

The Horror, The Horror.

Got to go, I'm off to the shower with a king sized bottle of bleach and a brillo pad.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top