Google to Reduce Data Rention

September 15, 2008 — 585

Google is to reduce the data retention times from 18months to 9 months.

The silicon Republic Article said:

Google has revealed plans to anonymise IP addresses on its server logs after nine months from the previous 18-month retention policy.

The search giant – which regularly comes in from scrutiny from privacy advocates over its access to knowledge of user activity – said it is taking the step to address regulatory concerns and improve privacy for users.

In March last year the company unveiled a policy to anonymise its search server logs, a move that was quickly followed by other search giants including MSN and Yahoo!”

Posted in data retention. Tags: , . No Comments »

Echelon: European Parliment Report

September 8, 2008 — 585

ECHELON, has long been talked about by individuals claiming to know things we don’t know about.

However, in 1999 the BBC reported on its existing, suddenly giving the “black helicopter” type sites credibility.

What is not widely reported is that in July 2001 the European Parliament produced a detailed report into the investigation of  Global Interception of Communications.

The report  clearly states that ECHELON does exist and is fully working. In one of its opening paragraphs (page 11 of 194) the report states that:

“the existence of a global system for intercepting communications, operating by means of cooperation proportionate to their capabilities among the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand under the UK/USA Agreement, is no longer in doubt;”

It also states that:

“there can now be no doubt that the purpose of the system is to intercept, at the very least, private and commercial communications”

The 194 page report provides numerous documents proving the existence of ECHELON, from papers released by t he Naval Security Group Activity (NAVSECGRUACT), NASA, and the NSA, to comments made by the former head of the Italian Secret Service.

Full Report on the European Parliament Web site

Downloaded copy of report




Tags: ,
Posted in Data Misuse, Mobile Phones, data retention. Tags: . No Comments »

Privacy Ranking

September 7, 2008 — 585

Privacy International have an excellent resource mapping the privacy issues around the world.

The UK, once again, is near the top of the leader board of the most intrusive countries in the world.

This map by Privacy International (available here in PDF format) shows that the UK is on par with the US and Russia, in relation to its infringement of privacy. PI Describes the UK as an “endemic surveillance society”

Tags: ,
Posted in UK Law, data retention. Tags: , . No Comments »

John Pinnington Loses Appeal

September 2, 2008 — 585

John Pinnington, who was sacked from his job, based on a historical allegation, lost his appeal on the 31st July 2008,

John Pinnington, a teacher from Oxford, was accused of rape 7 years ago, but had worked as a teacher since the incident – as there was not evidence to support the claim. However, when he applied for a transfer he had to undergo “enhanced CRB vetting”.  This additional vetting produced the old allegation, as a result he was sacked form his existing job.

There was no direct evidence against John Pinnington, only the allegation that he had committed an offence, much of the evidence would be described as “weak”, and there had not been any allegation since or before.

The solicitors representing John Pinnington said the case showed that the threshold for evidence, for getting somebody sacked falls “below reasonable suspicion”. They also added that “All that was required was that the allegations could not, on the untested material in possession of the police, be dismissed as necessarily untrue.”

Its not so much a case of innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven innocent.

With the ever increasing databases errors on virtually all of the systems PNC, Fingerprints, CRB, more CRB and even the DNA database, the chances of there being erroneous information is more and more likely. Further more once an allegation is made a person is now effectively tarred for life.

Lord Justice Richards, presiding over the case at the High Court, made several interesting/scary if not contradictory statements about the case.

He agreed that the accusations against Mr Pinnington had ’serious weaknesses’ and ‘could not be substantiated’, and then went on to say that future employers should be should be aware of the accusations “even if it only might be true“.

However, despite the the Judge’s own ruling allowing the most weak and biased information being provided to the employer the Judge then contradicted himself by stating that he was he was “troubled” that Mr Pinnington’s employer “apparently operated a blanket policy” of dismissing/not employing anyone with such allegations.

In short, the Judge believed the employers should have the information, but not act on it.

Related Articles

Daily Mail

The Register

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in Data Misuse, data retention. Tags: , . No Comments »

How Long is DNA Stored for?

August 25, 2008 — 585

Once DNA has been taken it is retained on the National DNA Database for 100 years, or until the Police request removal of a profile following notification of the death of the person to whom it relates.

Source: Home Office

Posted in DNA, data retention. Tags: . No Comments »

ACPO Position on Taking Samples of DNA for non-recordable offences: 2007

August 16, 2008 — 585

On August 2, 2007 Tony Lake the , ACPO lead on Forensics, Chair of the National DNA Database and Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police stated that:

“ACPO has real concerns about the proposals to extend the taking of DNA and fingerprints for non-recordable offences such as speeding or dropping litter. ACPO maintains the position that any proposal to take DNA or fingerprints has to be reasonable and proportionate to the crime”

He also stated that  “It is important to remember that DNA is only one part of the investigation and that prosecutions are brought based on other evidence such as witness statements, CCTV footage etc.”

If the police have “concerns” about the collection of DNA data from non recordable offences, and the public do not want it, why are these laws being pushed through?

Source  – ACPO

Tags: ,
Posted in DNA, data retention. Tags: , . No Comments »

ACPO Guidelines for DNA Retention

August 16, 2008 — 585

On 24th April 2006 the Association of Chief Police Offices (ACPO) produced a memo in relation to the retention of DNA and similar records.

ACPO recognized that people would be requesting that their DNA, fingerprint and PNC records destroyed if they were innocent of any crime; ACPO stated that “There is an increase in the number of requests being made to Chief Constables for the removal of DNA, fingerprints and PNC. This has been brought about by changes to PACE and a recent decision made in the Royal Courts of Justice by the Information Tribunal affecting the retention of criminal conviction history on PNC” and added Chief Constable are able to request the deletion of fingerprint, PNC, and DNA records of data they “own”, i.e data which their force processed.

ACPO even went as far as to define the occasions when DNA and fingerprints would be removed. The memo stated that:

Exceptional cases will, by definition, be rare. They might include cases where the original arrest or sampling was found to be unlawful. Additionally, where it is established beyond doubt that no offence existed, that might, having regard to all the circumstances, be viewed as an exceptional circumstance. For example where a dead body is found in a multi-occupancy dwelling and the cause of death is not immediately obvious. All the occupants are arrested on suspicion of murder pending the outcome of a post mortem. All arrested persons are detained at the local police station and samples taken. It later transpires that the deceased person died of natural causes. No offence therefore exists, and all persons are released from custody.

This memo comes after the 2005 ACPO Guidelines for Good Practice on DNA handling, where they simply state:

It is not necessary to destroy the DNA profile if an individual is arrested and subsequently cleared of the offence, or a decision is made not to prosecute (s.64, PACE, 1984). Therefore, profiles of DNA samples taken from individuals who are not prosecuted, released without charge, against whom proceedings are discontinued or who are acquitted will remain on the NDNAD and will be the subject of continuing searches. DNA samples are retained in cold storage at less than -15 degrees C by the laboratory that analysed them. They are used mainly for upgrading the profile with the most current profiling system and for quality assurance purposes.

In these guidelines ACPO make no mention, either way, about the ethics if deleting DNA of an innocent individual, probably something not deemed relevant at the time. Therefore surely the 2006 memo should take precedence? And, if deletion ‘where appropriate’ is the ACPO stated policy why are the UK government fighting the case of Marper and S in the ECHR , a case which if they lose will have major ramifications for the UK laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: ,
Posted in DNA, Fingerprint Scanners, UK Law, data retention. Tags: , . No Comments »

Select Committe Report: ICO

August 15, 2008 — 585

Following a call for evidence, by the House of Lords, for their investigation and report entitled “The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State” several different bodies and individuals provided their expertise, including GeneWatch, the Royal Engineering Academy, and ARCH. On 8th July 2007 Richard Thomas of the ICO submitted a report to House of Lords on the issue. The full report is available here.

Highlights from the report include:

  • The commissioner believes that the risks of excessive surveillance are with us today.
  • The risks to individuals [privacy]….. are evident and positive action is required to ensure that these risks do not manifest themselves and that unwarranted harm does not occur.
  • The Commissioner proposes that the Committee gives particular consideration to the following measures:

    1. • Mandatory privacy impact assessments by government departments.

    2. • Requirements to have codes of practice in place for pro active information sharing in the public sector.

    3. • Proper consultation with the Commissioner before significant new developments.

    4. • Increased audit and inspection powers for the Commissioner.

    5. • Effective penalties for serious disregard for the requirements of the data protection principles.
Posted in DNA, Data Protection Act, Fingerprint Scanners, data retention. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

Select Committee Report: Action on Rights for Children

August 15, 2008 — 585

In 2007 the House of Lords made a call for evidence, as part of their privacy investigations, entitled “The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State” several different bodies and individuals provided their expertise. One of these was the Action on Rights for Children  – ARCh

ARCH’s conclusions were very similar to those others who submitted reports, including the Royal Academy of Engineering, and GeneWatch, where they clearly stated that the balance of privacy of the individual versus surveillance by state, had clearly moved in the direction of the state.

Some of the highlights of the report are:

  • The position of the private individual who is not interfered with by the State unless he transgresses (or, in the case of children, is at risk of significant harm) is being turned on its head by data collection and surveillance.
  • It has  been estimated [in 2007] that, at a minimum, the DNA profiles of 100,000 children who have not committed any offence are held on NDNAD. This potentially places these children under suspicion whenever a positive DNA match is made at a crime scene.
  • As police are likely [to access  a variety of the recently created databases about children – possibly including  ContactPoint and Common Assessment Framework. This site has found confirmed that the police have used the databases, designed to protect children and assist them in times of difficulties, arrest them when they (the children) are attend counseling sessions and the like.
  • As the police will often recover DNA from a crime scene (that may not be that of an offender, but of a witness or passer by), they will be able to compare that DNA they have recovered with their own profile. If that DNA profile matches, they will be able to look at the details of the suspect and compare that with the other database records they have, as mentioned above. They can then draw a rather negative image of a child, even though this individual may never have been arrested or convicted of a crime.  The DNA “evidence” combined with the information on the databases (which is input derived mainly from untrained individuals opinions of the children), are likely to set in place assumptions that will effect the polices attitude, which will in-turn effect the investigation and the treatment of an individual.

Action on Rights for Children Report

Tags: ,
Posted in DNA, data retention. Tags: , , . No Comments »

Select Committee Report: Royal Academy of Engineering

August 15, 2008 — 585

In 2007 the House of Lords made a call for evidence, as part of their investigation into privacy  entitled “The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State” several different bodies and individuals provided their expertise. One of these was the Royal Academy of Engineering.

The Royal Academy of Engineering conclusions, submitted in June 2007, where similar, though more muted, to those of others who submitted evidence (e.g GeneWatch)

The report made several statements that the balance of privacy and surveillance of the state is swinging in favor of the state. They found that CCTV can not be avoided, that “optional systems” like Oyster cards, which track peoples movements around London, were not optional, and that there was no clear line between beneficial surveillance and constitutionally improper surveillance.

Highlights from the report include:

  • The rise of camera surveillance probably has the greatest impact as individuals in public spaces cannot refuse consent for the recording of their image…..The increase in such surveillance means that the ‘big brother’ State becomes more than just a cliché. Authorities are watching citizens for increasing proportions of their daily lives and citizens have no power to reject such surveillance.
  • In the private sector, schemes like the Oyster travel card …..involve collection of data about individuals… people would miss out significantly on benefits and convenience if they refuse them or use them anonymously. These technologies …effectively collect data about peoples’ journeys …by stealth.
  • The existence and use of the National DNA Databases (NDNAD) raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. ..An individual should have the right to withhold their DNA if there is no specific need for it in the investigation/prevention of crime.

This report, like the others submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee, showed that  UK government is on a direct path to have all the apparatus in place for a police state – even if that was not what they intend.

Royal Academy of Engineering Report

Tags: , , ,
Posted in CCTV, DNA, UK Law, data retention. Tags: , , , . No Comments »
« Older posts