The Home Secretary spoke today to Intellect, the UK trade association for the technology industry (you may remember them from the heated exchange of letters between their Director General, John Higgins, and Shadow Home Secretary David Davies back in 2007), about CCTV, DNA and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Although, presumably, the linking theme was intended to be 'technology and its relation to law and order', she made only one passing reference to ID cards, and none to other notable features of the technological landscape, such as the NHS "Spine" database of electronic patient records, or to the potential for government data-sharing to be every bit as privacy-invasive as CCTV.
In fact, her reference to ID cards was a masterpiece of ambiguity. Here's the quotation (my addition in square brackets):
"Are we being as transparent [in the implementation of technology] as possible – and as with ID cards, how do we provide individual citizens with the right level of choice and control?". Note the sleight of hand there... is this a hint at an implication that the National Identity Scheme already offers citizens the 'right level of choice and control', or a laudable aspiration to offer citizens choice and control with ID cards as well as in areas like the introduction of CCTV and DNA swabs? I wonder... and why do I have the uneasy feeling that, while I was watching a rabbit come out of the hat, I failed to notice the abstraction of my wallet?
It could be because the rest of the speech touches frequently on the topic of DNA samples and profiles but, again, refers only in passing to "the recent European Court judgement". There is no mention of compliance with the court's unanimous ruling, rather, a list of conditional changes to the current practices, and a commitment to remove the DNA of those under 10 years of age. From the title downwards ("Protecting rights, protecting society"), the Home Secretary's speech seeks to emphasise the need for balance between privacy and human rights on the one hand, and law enforcement and intrusion on the other. Unsurprisingly she does not refer to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has already made that calculation and concluded that the current policy is not proportionate, and fails "to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests".
There is what sounds like a rather grudging concession that "these changes will see some people coming off the database" - but what of for the European Court of Human Rights' clear principal finding - that the retention of DNA samples and profiles of innocent people "cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society"?
Here's what she says about that: [a more flexible approach] "could mean limiting how long the profiles of those who have
been arrested but not convicted of an offence could be retained. We are also re-examining retention arrangements for samples."
That sounds a lot like "no change" to me.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}