A couple of weeks ago I blogged about the Human Genetics Commission's report into the UK's National DNA Database (NDNAD), and its criticism of the lack of clarity surrounding the collection, use and retention of DNA.
Last week the BBC published this article, which included Home Office figures for the number of people between 10 and 18 years of age who have not been charged or cautioned (let alone convicted), but whose DNA profiles are still on the national database.
Quite apart from the figures themselves - according to which nearly 40,000 people under 18 are on the database despite being innocent - two things struck me as worrying in the article, both by implication.
Dominic Grieve, the Conservatives' shadow home secretary, was quoted as saying that it was time there was a Parliamentary debate on the issue, and the DNA database should be put on a statutory basis. In other words, the current use of the database is not directed by any formal law. Given that its principal use appears to be in the detection and prosecution of crime, that seems extraordinary. It certainly would not be considered an acceptable state, for instance, where evidence gathered from police interviews was concerned.
Second, a Home Office spokeswoman was quoted as saying that "there is no personal cost or material disadvantage to the individual simply by being on [the database]".
To my mind, that reflects a naive and outdated view of personal data and the risks associated with it. Either it implies that there's no risk to the individual provided the personal data remains secure and is adequately managed, or it implies that there's no risk to the individual even if the data is subject to inadvertent and/or inappropriate disclosure. I don't think either of those two assumptions can be taken as read.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}
You identify two alternative conditions under which the Home Office statement might be correct. However, there is an additional cost to the individual in not knowing which of these two alternatives might be true.
What are the risks to the individual of having a DNA record? Presumably not just breach. Perhaps the greatest risk is of being falsely accused of some crime, based on an erroneous DNA match. A modern Sweeney Todd would have plenty of hair clippings to strew around the crime scene.
Posted by Richard Veryard on August 18, 2008 at 11:06 PM GMT+00:00 #