Category: Data Protection

I think the provisions in the Crime and Security Bill that relate to DNA retention are not intended to be scrutinised properly. It is probably the most difficult Bill I have read. In fact, if I am honest, I have given up; I have decided to “get out more” and read my backlog of Decision Notices. First, the DNA provisions in the Bill are all expressed as amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), itself heavily amended

I am taking the opportunity to post on the blog a response from Ken Anderson, Assistant Commissioner, Privacy, Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada following my comments on Privacy by Design (PbD). There is in fact two letters – the earlier of which I will post as a comment to this blog. Just to set the scene re my concerns re PbD (which I think resemble the discussions on nuclear disarmament in the 1970s). In the Nixon-Brezhnev/Kosygin era,

“The way to hell is paved with good intentions” is a well known English saying. I am convinced that it applies to the claim that one can have "security and privacy" by adopting Privacy by Design (PbD) techniques. For example, Dr Cavoukian in her document on the use of whole body scanners at airports (see last week’s blog – 6th Jan) states that a PbD implementation “can satisfy security requirements without sacrificing (and perhaps enhancing) passenger privacy”. At one level

Dr. Anne Cavoukian, the Privacy Commissioner for Ontario, is a leading expert on Privacy by Design and the use of technology to protect privacy. Last year, she published a report into “Whole Body Imaging in Airport Scanners” which has become especially prescient as Gordon Brown rushes to introduce the technology into UK Airports. In her report (reference at end), Dr Cavoukian states that the “privacy-invasive potential” of these scanners can be addressed if privacy enhancing techniques are designed into the

I think whatever the procedures adopted by the Independent Safeguarding Agency (ISA), cases of unfair and excessive processing of personal data will be the likely outcome in future. The reason: the ISA’s check uses the wrong criteria. The BBC’s web-site today explains that “The Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) will now involve only those working with the same children once a week, not once a month, for example” and that “the new rules will apply to about two million fewer

Most citizens in the UK should expect to be linked to the proposed DNA database. This is the conclusion I have reached when considering a policy that permits indefinite retention of DNA data of those who have committed “recordable criminal offences” (as defined by the Home Secretary, see this week’s blogs). To show that this prospect is inevitable let’s go back to some official statistics. The first one is: “Research recently carried out on men born in 1953 revealed that

The Government has decided not to have a specific “DNA Commissioner”. This means that because DNA data are personal data, the Information Commissioner will become the prime regulator in relation to the Government’s DNA retention provisions. However, as will be discovered, the Commissioner will have his hands tied behind his back by the legislation as currently drafted. For example, the intention is that DNA data will be retained for specific periods of time (e.g. those convicted of a recordable offence