Personal information detailing intimate aspects of the lives of every British citizen is to be handed over to government agencies under sweeping new powers. The measure, which will give ministers the right to allow all public bodies to exchange sensitive data with each other, is expected to be rushed through Parliament in a Bill to be published tomorrow.

The new legislation would deny MPs a full vote on such data-sharing. Instead, ministers could authorize the swapping of information between councils, the police, NHS trusts, the Inland Revenue, education authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Department for Work and Pensions and other ministries.

Opponents of the move accused the Government of bringing in by stealth a data-sharing program that exposed everyone to the dangers of a Big Brother state and one of the most intrusive personal databases in the world. The new law would remove the right to protection against misuse of information by thousands of unaccountable civil servants, they added.

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, said he believed Britain had gone too far in helping to bring about a “surveillance society”. In a report drawing on personal data infringements across Europe but “inspired” by Britain’s plan for a new internet, email and telephone database, he added: “General surveillance raises serious democratic problems which are not answered by the repeated assertion that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. This puts the onus in the wrong place: it should be for states to justify the interferences they seek to make on privacy rights.”

He said he was “very worried about the downgrading of the protections of personal information”, adding: “Of course there has to be a balance to be struck. At the moment we have not got it right.”

David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, added: “The Government shouldn’t try to sneak through further building blocks of its surveillance state. Unrestricted data-sharing simply increases the risks of data loss. This is particularly troubling since the Government has already shown itself entirely incapable of keeping our personal data safe.”

The data-sharing measure is referred to in the Coroners and Justice Bill outlined in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech. It could, for instance, pave the way for medical records to be sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to identify drivers who pose a health risk, or school attendance data being handed to the Department for Work and Pensions to verify social security claims made by parents.

But civil rights groups warned that the possibility of public records being transferred to private companies on a minister’s whim was of even greater concern. Under the existing system, public bodies require primary legislation to authorize the transfer of data to another agency. The new plans would end such parliamentary scrutiny by permitting ministers to use secondary legislation without a full vote of MPs. The Bill sets out how ministers would be able to sidestep data protection and human rights laws that prevent public bodies revealing private information.

NO2ID, a group which campaigned against government plans for ID cards and the associated National Identity Register, said the proposals went far beyond data protection and were intended “to build the database state, concealed under a misleading name”. The group’s national coordinator, Phil Booth, said: “This is a Bill to smash the rule of law and build the database state in its place. Burying sweeping constitutional change in obscure Bills is an appalling approach. Having proved – and admitted – they cannot be trusted to look after our secrets, they are still determined to steal what privacy we have left. Parliament needs to wake up before it has no say any more.”

Civil liberties groups said the new powers could be used in conjunction with the equally controversial plan for a giant database holding details of people’s emails, telephone calls and internet searches. The Communications Data Bill, which would contain this information, was set for inclusion in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech but will now be part of a consultation paper to be published in January.

Mr Hammarberg said Britain’s poor record on data loss had led to an EU-wide debate about the dangers of a surveillance society. He added: “Data protection is crucial to the upholding of fundamental democratic values: a surveillance society risks infringing this basic right.”

The Ministry of Justice said data-sharing was essential for the delivery of “efficient and effective public services, tackling crime and protecting the public”. “Any draft order would require parliamentary approval and a privacy impact assessment,” said a spokesman. “Additionally, the Information Commissioner would have been invited to comment on the proposals. This will ensure any potential privacy issues and risks are identified and examined.

“The power will be exercised only in circumstances where the sharing of the information is in the public interest and proportionate to the impact on any person adversely affected by it.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-brother-state-ndash-by-stealth-1050576.html

Thousands of DNA samples from innocent people are currently retained

The men’s information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offense. The judgment could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK’s national database. The judges said keeping the information “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was “disappointed” by the European Court of Human Rights’ decision. The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgment by 17 senior judges from across Europe.

Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recorded offense in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

Discriminatory

The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.

Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs, less the money already paid in legal aid. The court found that the police’s actions were in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life – of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also said it was “struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales”.

The judges ruled the retention of the men’s DNA “failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests,” and that the UK government “had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard”. The court also ruled “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”.

‘Privacy protection’

The home secretary said: “DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month. “The government mounted a robust defense before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice. “The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgment.”

Solicitor Peter Mahy, who represented the men, said that the decision will have far-reaching implications. “It will be very interesting to see how the UK government respond. “The government should now start destroying the DNA records of those people who are currently on the DNA database and who are innocent of any crime.”

Human rights group Liberty said it welcomed the court’s decision. Director Shami Chakrabarti 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.”

‘Invasion of privacy’

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID group, which campaigns against identity cards, said: “‘This is a victory for liberty and privacy. “Though these judgments are always complicated and slow in coming, it is a vindication of what privacy campaigners have said all along. “The principle that we need to follow is simple – when charges are dropped suspect samples are destroyed. No charge, no DNA.”

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports on the ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research. Its director, Hugh Whittall, said: “We agree wholeheartedly with this ruling. The DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police. “People feel it is an invasion of their privacy, and there is no evidence that removing from the DNA database people who have not been charged or convicted will lead to serious crimes going undetected.
“The government now has an obligation to bring its own policies into line.”

Rights breach claim

One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. He had no previous convictions. The other man – a teenager identified as “S” – was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but later acquitted.

In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody. The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.

They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life. The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offenses, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.

Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offenses.

The Home Office has already set up a “contingency planning group” to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favor of the men.

By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2511536/Police-chief-calls-for-universal-DNA-database.html

Stephen House, Chief Constable of Strathclyde, said that storing the genetic profiles of every man, woman and child would help catch more criminals.

He also called for Scotland to adopt the English DNA system that allows the profiles of suspects to be kept even if they are not charged with any wrongdoing.

Police in Scotland have to destroy the DNA records of innocent people but can keep samples of those accused of sexual or violent crimes for three years.

There are around 4.2 million DNA profiles stored in England, which has the biggest genetic database in the world.

However, a government inquiry recommended last week that one million of these should be destroyed because they came from people who had never been convicted.

Increasing DNA databases north or south of the border would also be strongly opposed by human rights groups and by many politicians. In Scotland, the database currently holds the genetic profiles of around 200,000 Scots.

Mr House said he was pressing minister adopt the English system, and used the case of the murdered teenager Sally Anne Bowman to support his case.

Her killer was caught by the Metropolitan Police largely through a DNA sample collected after an unrelated incident that was already in the system.

He added: “In Scotland the chances are that the DNA would be destroyed but in England it wasn’t, it was put on the database and matched. There are numerous examples of where that has happened.

“An even more complete system is to say we will go the whole hog. Forget criminality, we’ll take DNA from everyone in the country.

“If the public and the government decide they want to do it, you would do it gradually.

“One of the ways to do it is that you would say all newborn children would have DNA recorded and when you apply for a driver’s license your DNA would be taken and gradually over the years would start to develop a 100 per cent database. Would it deter people? That’s less certain, but we would detect more crime.”

Last year, a senior judge called for the entire UK population, and every visitor to Britain to be put on the DNA database.

Lord Justice Sedley, one of England’s most experienced appeal court judges, described the country’s current system as “indefensible”.

However, any move towards a national database would meet with fierce opposition. Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems, has described the British public as the most “spied upon on the planet”.

The organization Liberty said a database of every man, woman and child in the country was a “chilling proposal, ripe for indignity, error and abuse”.

And the human rights lawyer John Scott said yesterday that the plan would “disturb the balance between the state and the individual”.

He added: “At a time when people are calling for the English system to be closer to our own, we shouldn’t be going in the opposite direction.

“We could get a situation where outside bodies like insurance firms manage to get hold of DNA from innocent people and use it for their own purposes.”

The issue is being reviewed for the Scottish Executive by Prof James Fraser of Strathclyde University’s center for forensic science.

Simon Davies, of the human rights watchdog organization Privacy International, said the Strathclyde force had a history of “obsession with DNA collection” and it was time it was “reined in”.

He added: “It was Strathclyde that proposed many years ago mandatory DNA collection for even minor offences. What it is proposing is a step too far.”

President Bush on April 24, 2008, signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”

The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”.

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here.

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of population wide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.

• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.

• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.

• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study “secondary conditions” of individuals and their families.

• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

“Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research,” Brase writes. “The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research.”

“The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child’s DNA for the purpose of genetic research.”

In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens’ Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.

Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called “DNA Warehouse” from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.

DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns’ DNA is already being collected.

In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.

Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:

“I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation’s stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it.”

Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, “S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …”

“Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children,” Paul continued.

“In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ‘public health’ disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ‘emergency,” he concluded.

Senators Clinton has been very vocal and supportive of the passing of this bill. Senators John McCain and Obama also voted in favor.

Source: Infowars.net
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/? p=1896
Published: May 2, 2008
Author: Steve Watson