Peter Bradwell
Researcher
Peter Bradwell is a researcher at Demos. He is interested in digital identity, technology and the ways that information and knowledge is shared...
at 3:27pm
on Monday, 5th November 2007
Big 'Big Brother' headline today, on the front of the Daily Mail. A written answer to a question from the Liberal Democrats shows the number of DNA profiles on the National DNA Database (NDNA), as of 25 October, to be about 4.5 million profiles. I can't find the full written answer online yet, but here's some more coverage of it. Some are duplicates - but the proportion of the population on there seems to be about 6-7%.
This isn't really news. The Home Office website proudly boasts that it is the biggest DNA database in the world, and that by the end of 2005 3.4 million profiles loaded on it. The speed with which it is growing is pretty interesting (we've posted about this before). It is not really surprising given that anyone arrested for a recordable offence - regardless of the outcome - can have their DNA taken. And that the requirements for police to delete records after acquittal or release have all but gone.
The NDNA Annual report states one the strategic objectives is to 'maintain public confidence in the security and integrity of the NDNA and its use.'
The only way it can do that, and secure the appropriate legitimacy, is through a much more engaged relationship with the public. It seems pretty obvious that the public have had nothing approaching a decent enough stake in talking about what the DNA database does, where information is gathered and the conditions under which it is used, deleted, interpreted etc.
That's not to question the integrity of how the information is handled (by the Forensic Science Service). But those important questions of data security, scientific integrity and so on are secondary to the kind of debates that Lord Sedley threw himself into - such as who goes on it; for what reasons, and when or if they are taken off. Apparently Meg Hillier has invited that kind of debate - which is lovely. And while it might be four years too late, it will be good to see what that debate looks like.
We'll have a suggestion or two about that in the forthcoming pamphlet on personal information, which will outline why we need a more open approach to the use of personal information like DNA. It will be published in early December; details to follow - we'd love to hear your thoughts.
This isn't really news. The Home Office website proudly boasts that it is the biggest DNA database in the world, and that by the end of 2005 3.4 million profiles loaded on it. The speed with which it is growing is pretty interesting (we've posted about this before). It is not really surprising given that anyone arrested for a recordable offence - regardless of the outcome - can have their DNA taken. And that the requirements for police to delete records after acquittal or release have all but gone.
The NDNA Annual report states one the strategic objectives is to 'maintain public confidence in the security and integrity of the NDNA and its use.'
The only way it can do that, and secure the appropriate legitimacy, is through a much more engaged relationship with the public. It seems pretty obvious that the public have had nothing approaching a decent enough stake in talking about what the DNA database does, where information is gathered and the conditions under which it is used, deleted, interpreted etc.
That's not to question the integrity of how the information is handled (by the Forensic Science Service). But those important questions of data security, scientific integrity and so on are secondary to the kind of debates that Lord Sedley threw himself into - such as who goes on it; for what reasons, and when or if they are taken off. Apparently Meg Hillier has invited that kind of debate - which is lovely. And while it might be four years too late, it will be good to see what that debate looks like.
We'll have a suggestion or two about that in the forthcoming pamphlet on personal information, which will outline why we need a more open approach to the use of personal information like DNA. It will be published in early December; details to follow - we'd love to hear your thoughts.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments