Genewatch has submitted a paper to the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group
suggesting that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and subsequent policies, have
not been successful in meeting the main criticisms aimed at the way in which the
DNA Database has operated in the past.
The Chair of the Ethics Group, Professor Mark Watson-Gandy, has asked for a
briefing document considering the main arguments that were levelled at the DNA
Database prior to 2012 and make recommendations as to how the Ethics Group
should respond to Genewatch
Background:
The National DNA Database (NDNAD) was set up in 1995. It stores electronic
records of individuals’ DNA profiles. This may be through saliva, blood, semen, etc.
The database also contains a person’s criminal record, their name, date of birth,
gender, police intelligence information, which biological sample the DNA was taken
from, the type of DNA, a DNA profile, and more. The database as introduced to store
criminals’ information, to identify quickly and easily if they were to reoffend. It
searches the DNA profile from crimes against individuals’ stored DNA information.
Over time, many different pieces of legislation have been introduced regarding the
database. In 2012, the Protection of Freedoms Act was introduced as an act of
Parliament. It pertained, amongst other things, to the regulation of biometric data and
its impact has been much discussed.
This briefing note will outline the main arguments brought against the database
before 2012, discuss the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and make
recommendations as to how the Ethics Group should respond to Genewatch.
Main arguments prior to 2012:
, Increasing access to individuals' personal data: Over the years, both the
police and government gained more access to people's data, which has
caused distrust and wider questions. For example, the Home Office secretly
granted 25 private companies access to the DNA database, to use for their
own profit. Another example is the identification of how to profile
chromosomes which may show an individual's 'propensity' to commit crime.
What will be done with information of this kind? Will these people be put on
special databases? Is there more chance they'll be accused of a crime?
Doesn't this violate their privacy?
Deletion of information: A large criticism has been the difficulty with people
being able to have their information deleted from the database. Many felt as
though innocent people were being treated as suspects due to their
information being kept. The process of removal was often lengthy, having to
ask the chief to be removed, and the outcome depending on the exceptional
circumstances of the request. S & Marper v UK [2008] held that there wasn’t
enough evidence to justify retaining innocent people’s information. It also
highlighted that as very little people were being removed from the database,
there was essentially a blanket retention policy, breaching the right to private
life. Though the Crime and Security Act 2010 brought about a positive
change, with samples to be destroyed after 6 months or once the profile put
on the database, many Home Office recommendations were not brought into
force. Furthermore, often, information on linked databases was not deleted at
the same time. This was problematic as records of arrests could lead to
individuals being refused jobs, visas, or being targeted by police. It could also
cause false stereotypical assumptions to be based on the information, such
as reoffending based on ethnicity.
Ethnicity: Criticism was brought against the database regarding ethnicity,
with a report claiming that the information stored on the database and other
databases were not uniform. The report also highlighted that some “sections
of society were disproportionately represented.” 1
Governance and oversight: Another large problem was the lack of
transparency regarding mechanisms of governance and oversight. The DNA
1
Black Mental Health UK Written Consultation Response; Keeping the Right People on the
DNA Database: Science and Public Protection, BMH UK, 2008
