The police have been taking fingerprints and DNA samples from suspects for years. Recently they have - in England and Wales, not Scotland - been keeping samples from anyone arrested even if that person was never even charged let alone found guilty of any crime. This has allowed the UK to start developing a national DNA database by stealth. We currently have over four and a half million entries on the database with over a million of these having been added when the person was under 18 (reference).

Today the ECHR has ruled that holding the fingerprints and DNA of innocent people charged with no offence is a breach of human rights. According to the Court:

The powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences … failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests

and

the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society

The UK government’s response has been to describe the ruling as “disappointing”. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that “the existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement”. This is often code for “we’re trying to find a loophole to get round the judgement”, however the unanimous decision of 17 judges combined with the strength of their comments may make this difficult. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said:

This is one of the most strongly worded judgements that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver.

Hugh Whittal of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics said:

We agree wholeheartedly with this ruling. The DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police

Related posts:

1. The Brown Hatter’s Tea Party Brown believes compulsory national ID Cards, CCTV surveillance and mass...

Some years ago a manufacturer introduced a gadget called the Mosquito. This emitted an annoying hum at a very high pitch - designed only to be audible by the young. The idea was to target groups of youngsters hanging around and causing trouble. The sound made by the Mosquito is so annoying that they move on quickly.

Whilst technically clever the gadget has been controversial. It was argued that by targetting young people specifically the Mosquito was discriminating unfairly, breaching their civil liberties and human rights. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty said:

What type of society uses a low-level sonic weapon on its children?Imagine the outcry if a device was introduced that caused blanket discomfort to people of one race or gender, rather than to our kids

So, as the BBC reports, the manufacturers have responded: with a version that can annoy everyone! The new Mosquito Mark 4 has a setting that allows it to emit a lower frequency sound that can be heard by anyone.

Having been criticised for indiscriminately annoying only some people they respond by indiscriminately annoying everyone. Madness.

Of course this wouldn’t be a problem if the devices were only switched on when trouble was detected and there was a need to clear up a group, of whatever age. The issue from a civil liberty perspective is that many - perhaps most - of these things are left on all the time. This, yet again, reverses the assumption of innocence ; if we choose to stay in a particular place for more than a few minutes then we must be up to no good.

It’s the faceless voice of authority screaming “These streets are ours, not yours”.

The Buzz Off campaign is the centre of opposition to the mosquito. I expect they will soon be getting many more supporters.

No related posts.

She refused.

Smith used the argument that a minister shouldn’t interfere with operational police matters in a particular investigation. The police should be independent of the government.

She’s quite right about that and I agree. But it doesn’t remove the requirement for, if not an apology, at least an expression of regret.

Smith’s whole approach was defiant. She gave the impression of not even understanding why people are upset. As such she implicitly condoned the police action.

The issue here is bigger than the arrest of Damian Green, that’s just a symptom of a wider problem. The issue is what’s happened to the UK under New Labour. It’s because of the illiberal, authoritarian approach taken by successive Home Secretaries that the police thought themselves justified in taking the action they did. Labour’s constant chipping away at our civil liberties has made thinkable the once unthinkable.

By refusing to even express regret about this latest small step towards a police state Smith has simply underlined the danger her party represents to British freedom.

Related posts:

1. Stalinist Britain - New Labour’s Legacy A Tory MP is arrested for embarrassing the government...
2. A Bad Day for Big Brother Government on defensive over surveillance society...

That’s what happened yesterday in England.

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green was arrested at his home yesterday, counter-terrorist officers reportedly searched his home and office. He was then held and questioned for nine hours before being released on bail.

Green is suspected of the “crime” of conspiring with a civil servant to allegedly release information such as the following:

• The Home Secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it
• An illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons
• A list of potential Labour rebels against plans to introduce 42 days internment
• A letter from the Home Secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime

(list from the BBC)

Even if the allegations against Green are true, that’s hardly stuff that could compromise national security. It’s simply information that the government wanted to conceal for political purposes.

The Conservative party are understandably furious at this unprecendented and heavy-handed arrest. David Cameron has reportedly described the events as “Stalinesque”. He’s right.

Did the government know about or authorise the arrest? They say no - however it’s standard procedure for the Home Secretary to be informed prior to action involving MPs.

Even if no government minister knew about this it doesn’t change the fact that it happened. Even if the police acted entirely on their own, it’s a result of the last decade of Labour rule that we live in a country where they even consider such an action.

Obviously MPs should not be above the law. However this appears to be a case that the police simply should not have wasted time pursuing, MP or otherwise. There are certainly better uses for anti-terrorist officers.

New Labour has been taking away our freedoms bit by bit so that most people don’t notice what’s hapening. When an elected MP is arrested for embarrassing the government we may well be at a very dangerous tipping point.

In a free country releasing this sort of information should not be a crime, it should be a duty.

No related posts.

It’s certainly true that being forcibly fingerprinted near home would be more convenient than having to travel to a central enrollment facility. However the idea of the fingerprinting and associated identity checking being performed by local shop assistants blows away any remaining claims to security the system might have. It only needs one corrupt or incompetent registrar to compromise the integrity of the database and making registrars out of thousands of shop keepers will ensure that there is more than one.

In an even more bizarre twist This Is London reports we could have to pay £25 or more for this “service”! That’s on top of the cost for the card itself. This charge is to ensure the scheme is “self-financing” - which means we all still pay for it, just not through taxation but by fees to the private sector.

Phil Booth of ID Card opponents NO2ID said:

The government is selling a pig in a poke. What company is going embarrass itself to the tune of millions for a contract that that everyone outside the Home Office itself knows will be cancelled by a new administration?’

And what would you think about a shop that was happy to profit from such an unpopular, oppressive scheme to fingerprint its customers like common criminals? Would you be more or less likely to shop there in future?

Photo Copyright Eliza Snow/iStockphoto

No related posts.

In a change from earlier plans the compulsion will apply initially to workers at only two airports, Manchester and London City, for an 18 month trial before national rollout. This backtracking appears to be a result of opposition to the scheme from both the airport workers’ union Unite and the airline industry which described the plans as “unjustified”. Airside workers are already vetted and subject to stringent security checks.

In an apparent appempt to buy off the opposition the Home Office is expected to provide financial support during the trial period.

Phil Booth of ID Card opponents NO2ID said:

“The unions and the industry are opposed. An expert just described the security justification as absolute bunkum. Dropping to trials at a couple of airports is a transparent attempt to save ministerial face. Dropping the entire scheme, by comparison, would save only privacy, liberty, public money and long-term national embarrassment.’”

Related posts:

1. Airline Industry Attacks ID Card Plans UK airlines object to "being used for political purposes"...
2. Arrests At Peaceful ID Card Protest in Edinburgh Peaceful protestors arrested at ID Card meeting...
3. Young People Slam ID Card Scheme A piece of Home Office propaganda backfires...

The BBC reports that pubs in Aberdeen are to start forcing customers to take drug tests before being allowed in - this apparently counts as “voluntary” testing. If you don’t “volunteer” you aren’t allowed in.

Chief Inspector Innes Walker of Grampian Police said that as a result of these enforced tests:

“people had a greater confidence that they could enjoy a night out without fear of encountering drugs”

Personally I’d rather enjoy a night out without the fear of encountering the apparatus of a police state and being treated like a criminal. At the moment anyone who refuses to take a test can simply walk away - how long before such refusal is taken as an admission of guilt?

The biggest problem with this sort of universal testing is that it completely reverses the burden of proof. No reasonable cause is required to test someone, it’s up to us to prove that we’re not druggies before being allowed in.

According to the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA):

“We hope that over time the model can be developed and used by community partnerships in other towns and cities across Scotland to reduce the harm caused by drugs.”

I for one will not submit to this and will boycott any pub that introduces such a scheme.

What about you?

No related posts.

They haven’t held back. Some of the top discussions in the main forum at the moment include: “How can you stop civil servants peeking?”, “Don’t vote Labour next time”, “I don’t trust you…” and “I’d rather emmigrate or go to prison”.

The Home Office thought that young people would be a soft touch for sneaking in ID Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register (NIR). They clearly underestimated today’s youth. I particularly liked this post from Number6: Debunking the “Myths” page

If you’re aged 16-25 and want to let Jacqui Smith know what you think, head over to mylifemyid.org.

Related posts:

1. Arrests At Peaceful ID Card Protest in Edinburgh Peaceful protestors arrested at ID Card meeting...
2. Airline Industry Attacks ID Card Plans UK airlines object to "being used for political purposes"...
3. First ID Card Guinea Pigs Named Airport workers will soon be forced onto ID database...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18114904242

If anyone would like to contribute to their defence fund the information on how to do this is here:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=18114904242&topic=5186

No related posts.

http://www.contractoruk.com/news/003867.html

That’s a lot of money we pay for the “privilege” of being spied on. The full report can be downloaded from the TPA website:

http://tpa.typepad.com/waste/files/the_cost_of_big_brother_government.pdf

Related posts:

1. A Bad Day for Big Brother Government on defensive over surveillance society...